PDA

View Full Version : Are chessplayers homophobic?



firegoat7
05-02-2004, 03:07 AM
Thought I would add this comment from Bonham on another thread
No. In fact I have never been to Turkey at all. But if you want to employ juvenile homophobic-style insinuations (which, FWIW, are false anyway), I will simply ask Paul to warn and then ban you. Your .sig file implies you're "progressive" but no real progressive would employ a line like that. Ever. Grow up.

Now I know you live in Tasmania Kev. A state that does not have a good history when it comes to sexual tolerance. Although I did hear that there new laws are quite progressive. Nevertheless, I have gay and bisexual friends and want to know, What is wrong with being gay or bisexual? After all you seem very eager to defend your hetreosexuality, as if it is even an issue. So may I ask you again, when you claim you have no moral value, Why the hell did you defend yourself?

Meanwhile I think I will give jammo a ring to go clubbing. I love leather pants and I think Firebear has a certain ring to it. Jammo and me dancing to the village people, man what a fantasy.

love FG7

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 03:19 AM
Dear moderators

I wanted to put a poll in this thread,but could not seem to add it. Anybody got a suggestion on how this is possible?

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 04:33 AM
Now I know you live in Tasmania Kev. A state that does not have a good history when it comes to sexual tolerance. Although I did hear that there new laws are quite progressive.

Indeed, actually more progressive than your state's now. I've been quite involved in this issue at times, including (among other things) campaigning successfully for the removal of all anti-gay websites from government internet servers and linkages here, and editorialising against remnants of the state's floundering anti-gay movement when I ran the local student paper. Only small contributions, but every little helps. It's quite an important political issue to me, one of the very few where I consider the opposing side to simply have no merit whatsoever.


Nevertheless, I have gay and bisexual friends and want to know, What is wrong with being gay or bisexual? After all you seem very eager to defend your hetreosexuality, as if it is even an issue. So may I ask you again, when you claim you have no moral value, Why the hell did you defend yourself?

Well, firstly, despite there being nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual, you seem to consider it appropriate to drop stereotypes that would be interpreted as anti-gay into your attacks on me. Not the first time you have done this either, though the worst example of it (on your little night of hydra-trolling) got deleted. That you think it is acceptable to use homophobic baiting in debate proves you are not the progressive your sig file suggests you are. A real progressive simply would not find this drivel funny. Indeed a real progressive would often support it being illegal. :owned:

The only reason I bother to point out my heterosexuality in this context is that one of the many remarkably stupid things about homophobia is how often it is directed at people who are not even gay. It is important to highlight this because it shows that it is an issue which affects us all, not just an issue that affects GLBTI(*) people. Almost anyone can be a victim of homophobia, whether actually gay or not. It is in all our interests to have it stopped, starting with you and your witless insults. Hope that makes it clearer.

As for moral values, that's just a non sequitur from you again, with a fair dose of out-of-context as well. Even if I did have objectively moral views, what would that have to do with my reasons for clarifying anything relating to myself?


Meanwhile I think I will give jammo a ring to go clubbing. I love leather pants and I think Firebear has a certain ring to it. Jammo and me dancing to the village people, man what a fantasy.

I can picture it actually. Ewwwwww..... :p

(*) shorthand for "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex" for those who didn't know.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 08:26 AM
I will be to the point and answer the question of the thread.

I might or might not be homophobic depending on definition. Just as KB expressed the sentiment "I can picture it actually. Ewwwwww..... " , so do I say, Ewwwwww...... But I am tolerant.

bobby1972
05-02-2004, 09:15 AM
hey firegoat what sort of stupid thread ,why you even mention such bad taste thing .and by the way i dont fear them or any other chess player.who cares whats on people minds free country they can fear who they like.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 09:21 AM
I wanted to put a poll in this thread,but could not seem to add it. Anybody got a suggestion on how this is possible?

Doesn't look like polls can be added retrospectively. When you created the thread there should have been an option "Add a Poll to this Thread" or something - with a checkbox and a field for the number of options. However, once the thread is created if the edit the first post, that option is disabled.

So the only way would seem to be: create a new thread.

arosar
05-02-2004, 10:42 AM
hey firegoat what sort of stupid thread ,why you even mention such bad taste thing .and by the way i dont fear them or any other chess player.who cares whats on people minds free country they can fear who they like.

This is my vote for post of 2004. This is a stupid thread.

AR

bobby1972
05-02-2004, 11:01 AM
he he he

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 04:05 PM
I might or might not be homophobic depending on definition. Just as KB expressed the sentiment "I can picture it actually. Ewwwwww..... " , so do I say, Ewwwwww...... But I am tolerant.

In my case the "Ewwwwww..." was solely because of the specific personalities involved.

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 06:26 PM
Hello people,

It is interesting that you confuse humor from an infamous cultural movie namely- "Flying High" for being Homophobic Mr Bonham, but hey that is your choice. Prehaps it would be better if we never had any humor so that conversations like these do not take place...Yes/NO... I don't think so. See you miss a few particular points that actually weaken your arguement considerably.

Firstly When you try to essentialise conversation into your paradigmn of political correctness you made a key mistake. By insisting that only your interpretations are genuine you actually alienate any would be supporter of your political views.

Secondly, You then justify your position by suggesting that your past history is justification for your current statements. When in actual fact your statements both initially and afterwards suffer from a blinkerd view. In other words you don't like the humour of "Flying High" but its ok if YOU make some jokes. Get real Bonham, your actions are just hypocritical nonsense. No amount of previous credo is protection against that sort of stupidity. But hey,we are al human, we all make mistakes, just some of us admit them.

Regards N-Superman

PHAT
05-02-2004, 07:11 PM
In my case the "Ewwwwww..." was solely because of the specific personalities involved.

Oh, so you don't go "Ewwwwww" when you see a gay fisting porno? :eek: Maybe you realy are struggling with your sexual identity.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 11:00 PM
It is interesting that you confuse humor from an infamous cultural movie namely- "Flying High" for being Homophobic Mr [sic] Bonham, but hey that is your choice.

Whatever their origin (and I doubt it's solely that movie) these terms are widely used as anti-gay slurs, and even without them there's still the matter of your severely homophobic hydra-trolling towards me (since deleted). Another craven and disingeneous attempt by you to make yourself look good.


Prehaps it would be better if we never had any humor so that conversations like these do not take place...Yes/NO...

Your sense of humour would indeed be best left in the high-school toilets.


Firstly When you try to essentialise conversation into your paradigmn of political correctness you made a key mistake.

I have no such paradigm. Just because I point out your faux-progressive tendencies doesn't mean I am PC. Indeed I am opposed to many PC-supported restrictions on political debate, because I believe that the best ways to deal with racist and homophobic idiocy are ridicule and reason, not censorship (of course, on a private BB, I support the owner's right to censor whatever they like). I'm not either progressive or conservative either, I reject that pointless dichotomy. You come across in word and manner on this BB - and I hope it is a misleading impression - as a person who is attracted to a progressive stance because it provides an opportunity to be rebellious and angry and smash things up, not because of an especially progressive nature.


By insisting that only your interpretations are genuine you actually alienate any would be supporter of your political views.

That's empirically false, plenty of people aren't alienated in the slightest. If anything in my stances alienated people, it would be being too rational and not using enough propaganda. People who insist that only their interpretations are genuine can, unfortunately, be very effective in politics.


Secondly, You then justify your position by suggesting that your past history is justification for your current statements.

No, all I was referring to, to justify my criticisms of your comments, is those comments themselves and your past comments. You don't comprehend what the other person writes very well, do you?


When in actual fact your statements both initially and afterwards suffer from a blinkerd view. In other words you don't like the humour of "Flying High" but its ok if YOU make some jokes.

My jokes aren't homophobic. Yours are. As for jokes, I will admit, so you can stop freaking out about them, that both "firegoat extinguisher" and the line about Wastell were cheapo throwaways for entertainment purposes only, not necessarily reflecting my views about the debate in question. Happy now? Maybe you've got a few admissions you might like to share with us, quite a few in fact ...


Get real Bonham, your actions are just hypocritical nonsense.

You can say that, but you can't make it stick (see above). Whereas I nail you on inconsistencies which you don't even attempt to contest all the time.


But hey,we are al human, we all make mistakes, just some of us admit them.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You must be trolling, no one could be so stupid as to overlook the self-irony in that comment. Almost your entire presence on these BBs (the odd quality post now and then omitted) has been one long unadmitted mistake - starting with your still unrecanted mistakes on the clowns thread.


Regards N-Superman

No regards to you, goat, and strictly speaking the term Ubermensch is preferred, it doesn't translate very well and Christopher Reeve hasn't helped matters there. But there aren't too many Ubermensch round here, and you, sure as the Eternal Recurrence isn't, aint one of them.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 11:10 PM
Oh, so you don't go "Ewwwwww" when you see a gay fisting porno? :eek:

I'm not sure I've seen a gay fisting porno as such, Mapplethorpe photos really don't quite count, do they? Gay male images neither revolt nor arouse me, I just think "Hey, it's a picture of a couple of guys having sex. Big deal."


Maybe you realy are struggling with your sexual identity.

What, and this whole thread just expresses my secret lust for firegoat? Don't think so somehow. :eek:

PHAT
05-02-2004, 11:34 PM
I'm not sure I've seen a gay fisting porno as such, ...

Gay male images neither revolt nor arouse me, I just think "Hey, it's a picture of a couple of guys having sex. Big deal."


While it is true that the only person who truly knows what that person is thinking, is that same person, I will hazzard a guess here. You might say "...neither revolt nor arouse me... " but I say you are bullsch.ting us - or maybe yourself.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 11:50 PM
I say that you are an evidence-free zone engaging in mindless trolling. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Of course, if I was unconsciously either aroused or revolted, I wouldn't know that, would I?

firegoat7
06-02-2004, 12:34 AM
Yeah Bonham,

You as usual misinterpret everything in your typical self obsessed style.

Whatever their origin (and I doubt it's solely that movie) these terms are widely used as anti-gay slurs, and even without them there's still the matter of your severely homophobic hydra-trolling towards me (since deleted). Another craven and disingeneous attempt by you to make yourself look good.

Almost anybody who cares to remember will tell you that the quotes: "Do you like gladiator movies" and "Do you like Turkish prisons" are quotes from "Flying High" by Leslie Nelson. Even the fact that you responded to these quotes as if they were real questions suggests that you are pig ignorant of the movie.
Then you gloss up your ignorance by attacking me with stupid claims. Get with the program you have been trolled hook,line and sinker, whilst your efforts at deflection are feeble.

Regards your pen friend,
Firegoat 7

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 12:57 AM
Almost anybody who cares to remember will tell you that the quotes: "Do you like gladiator movies" and "Do you like Turkish prisons" are quotes from "Flying High" by Leslie Nelson.

What about people who have heard these stereotypes outside the movie and therefore don't care to remember because there's nothing to remember? Obviously I fit that category, I don't think I've even seen it. So I am indeed pig-ignorant of the movie, but I've seen these cliches used with no reference to the movie and in this kind of context many times before. One would not assume a person using them was talking about the movie.

And there is still the matter of your homophobic hydra-trolling on the old board, completely and individually damning. (And I hope you were flying high on the night in question, because I'd hate you to lack an excuse.)


Even the fact that you responded to these quotes as if they were real questions suggests that you are pig ignorant of the movie.

Actually I only twigged after the second one, the gladiator one alone wasn't sufficient.


Get with the program you have been trolled hook,line and sinker, whilst your efforts at deflection are feeble.

Hmmmm, look at how much drivel I have been able to get you to spout simply by outing your homophobic tendencies.

Only a fool would be so certain who was trolling who. :p

Now, a question for you, little goat (and if you give a stupid-sounding answer I will watch the bloody thing and check it) - in the movie in question, to what do these lines you employed refer?

firegoat7
06-02-2004, 01:27 AM
Dear Mr Bonham,

Your being paranoid, go hire the movie and have a laugh, relax!!

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 01:38 AM
On second thoughts, I'll wait til I can see it for free. :D

chesslover
07-02-2004, 07:11 PM
speaking about homophobia...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

In the US, the state supreme court of massachusetts has ruled that gay marriage are constitutional and must be allowed

This has made the social conservatives mad, and state after state that has been dominated by the republicans due to Bush's 2002 landslide, has passed legislation to make gay marriages illegal, and to forbid state government employees from recognising them

The republicans are calling all of these the "defense of marriage act"

President Bush has also attacked the ruling allowing gay marriages, and has stated that he will move a constitutional amendmendt if elected making gay marriages illegal and unrecognised throughout USA

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 10:48 PM
The republicans are calling all of these the "defense of marriage act"

Sounds like a defence of language act is needed to deal with these charlatans. :rolleyes:

chesslover
07-02-2004, 10:57 PM
Sounds like a defence of language act is needed to deal with these charlatans. :rolleyes:

but homophobia is rife in Australia too, and prominent conservative politicans here have attacked homosexuals, including our very own Rev Fred Niles.

Howver I hear the figure of 10% as a estimate of men/women who are homosexuals in the world - which is a big voting bloc by any measure, and which would cut across all ethinic groups

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 11:09 PM
but homophobia is rife in Australia too, and prominent conservative politicans here have attacked homosexuals, including our very own Rev Fred Niles.

As I put it in a magazine article once "our lunatics are no milder than their lunatics, but our lunatic fringe is America's political mainstream". :rolleyes:

Rincewind
07-02-2004, 11:28 PM
As I put it in a magazine article once "our lunatics are no milder than their lunatics, but our lunatic fringe is America's political mainstream". :rolleyes:

Fred Nile is a lunatic but a dangerous one. If Tony Abbott wants to do something useful, he should be off raising money to get him locked up. :D

PHAT
07-02-2004, 11:34 PM
Look I don't realy care about same sex couples shacking up together or pledging their undieing love or having a joint bank account et cetera. However, let's keep the word "marriage" for man+woman. Invent some other word for same sex couples, keep "marriage" for the normals.

paulb
08-02-2004, 12:25 AM
I will be to the point and answer the question of the thread.

I might or might not be homophobic depending on definition. Just as KB expressed the sentiment "I can picture it actually. Ewwwwww..... " , so do I say, Ewwwwww...... But I am tolerant.

Tolerant? "Tolerant" tends to imply that you, as "normal" superior person, generously put up with something you don't have to.

That's not good enough. It's patronising and insulting. Instead of tolerance, try full, unsqueamish acceptance. Or, as Carr put it in one of his rare intelligent remarks, "constructive engagement".

The point is, of course, that it's not up to heterosexuals to "tolerate" homosexuals. The point is that it's none of anyone's damn business what people do in private. Just as whether or not you approve of me painting a picture, or eating a pizza, etc, etc, etc, is completely inconsequential. I'm not seeking your approval in those cases, and I certainly don't ask myself what my neighbour's opinion is of my bedroom activities.

It's fascinating to wonder why heterosexuals (eg) pat themselves on the back for tolerance, as if it were a virtue, when often it's just veiled arrogance. Personally, I'd rather be shunned than "tolerated".

Should say, of course, that not everyone means it in that sense - maybe not you - but most do, of course

paulb
08-02-2004, 12:54 AM
The Massachusetts judgement is very interesting in a number of ways. As I understand it, the inevitable legality of gay marriage follows inexorably from the recent landmark decision of the US Supreme Court legalising homosexuality. A number of the nasty conservatives on that bench, opposing the decision in the minority, remarked that legalising homosexuality made gay marriage a US inevitability - and that was why they opposed legalising homosexuality. (It's amazing that in the land of the free, homosexuality was still illegal in many states at the start of the 21st century. This, in a land that expressly distinguishes church and state. It all goes to show that "rights" and "guarantees" are always going to be filtered through the often oppressive, arbitrariness of culture).

In a rousing judgment, the Massachusetts court remarked that allowing mere "civil unions" was nowhere near enough, commenting that the sometimes sorry history of the United States amply demonstrated that treating people differently had almost always implied treating them unequally, and that all must be equal before the law. They also went to some lengths to exclude appeals by explicitly dismissing certain likely objections.

Bravo.

It seems the reaction to the right-wing lunacy of recent years may be beginning.

Gay marriage is interesting in one sense because "marriage" is not something a lot of gays aspire to, as I understand it. But they'd likely support the right to marry. Even so, it looks like becoming a heavily symbolic issue: the rights of the little guy against the bastardry of the mob. Bring it on!

I'd strongly support gay marriage, much for the reasons given in Massachusetts: that legal differentiation usually implies (and usually promotes) inequality. To my mind, homosexuality is either legal or not. If it's legal, then gays should have full, equal rights, no ifs, buts or maybes. The practice of having legislatively-defined second-class citizens is deeply offensive.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 01:07 AM
Tolerant? "Tolerant" tends to imply that you, as "normal" superior person, generously put up with something you don't have to.

:clap: for a much more accurate use of "tolerance" than is normally seen on these boards.


That's not good enough. It's patronising and insulting. Instead of tolerance, try full, unsqueamish acceptance.

I agree with that too, in this case tolerance (sens. strict.) isn't fully good enough. Still, if a person can't be accepting, I would prefer they be tolerant rather than (fully) intolerant.


Personally, I'd rather be shunned than "tolerated".

When shunning extends to violent persecution or denial of liberties, I'd prefer the latter. Let the morons think what they will, so long as they can't hurt you, is my approach to such things.

Matt: You haven't given any argument to support your case, so I'll just (for now) say that I disagree.

PHAT
08-02-2004, 11:43 AM
Tolerant? "Tolerant" tends to imply that you, as "normal" superior person, generously put up with something you don't have to. ... Should say, of course, that not everyone means it in that sense - maybe not you - but most do, of course

True, I do not. I mean "tolerant" as in refaining from intereference in other people's business.
Also, I mean "normal" in a non-judgemental sence - simply a statistical minority group sence.



That's ["tolerant"] not good enough. It's patronising and insulting. Instead of tolerance, try full, unsqueamish acceptance.


Sorry mate, here we diverge. I do not find thinking of queer sex anything other than disgust. Ifeel sequeamish - I hope I am permitted to feel sqeamish!! Nevertheless, I tolerate other people concentually interacting in whatever way they like.



The point is, of course, that it's not up to heterosexuals to "tolerate" homosexuals. The point is that it's none of anyone's damn business what people do in private.

Correct, it isn't anyone's damn business what people do in private. However, it is still a matter of tolerance - tolerance of one person by another person. I do not think of it as Hero Hetro Matt vetts Homo Harry. It is just me tolerating another, as I myself wish to be tolerated for the "un-normal" behaviours that I have.


[Edit] PS. I forgot to add, I am only objecting to the use of the word "marriage" be used for same sex marriage-like legal arrangments. I object on the grounds that we need to add words to our language rather than expand the meaning of the words that we already have. Giving an extra meaning to a pre-existing word only makes communication more difficult. (But opens the door for more jokes and puns :) )

PHAT
08-02-2004, 11:59 AM
Matt: You haven't given any argument to support your case, so I'll just (for now) say that I disagree.


I don't know what to say. How do you want me support my claim that: when I think of a couple of homos felching, my face involunterily contorts to looking like a twisted sandshoe, I feel the erge to turn the hose on them, but refain from doing so. Since when do I, or anyone else, have to defend their disgust. One might have to defend a position of intolerance, but not of personal preference.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 02:11 PM
Matt, I was referring to your (non-existent) case against gay marriage being called "marriage", which you (up til that point) hadn't given any case for it.

As for that case, gay people's reasons for marriage cover much the same ground as straight people's, so not calling it "marriage" would seem like a needless proliferation of words. Or if you're not going to call it "marriage", don't (and I mean legally here) call some straight marriages "marriage" either.

As for your feelings of disgust, I've spoken to gay people who feel much the same way about straight sex, though of course they generally express it a lot more tactfully than you. :rolleyes:

PHAT
08-02-2004, 04:20 PM
As for that case, gay people's reasons for marriage cover much the same ground as straight people's, so not calling it "marriage" would seem like a needless proliferation of words. Or if you're not going to call it "marriage", don't (and I mean legally here) call some straight marriages "marriage" either.


I hate you for steeling my thunder. I agree entirely that some normal marriages are legally sound, but in a practical sence, not marriages at all. The catagory that I most hate are those who are married and are not actively seeking to procreate. These people are just shacked-up, with a certificate. I mean, "marriage" is a cuturally universal custom that ties males and females together, with in most cases, presumption of exclusivity sexual access. This is for stabilising the group by way of males being able to say that offspring off their wives are (probably) his.

So, I am saying, that some hetero married couples ought not be given the rights and advantages that accrue to married cpoule with children. On that basis, and since homosexuals cannot have children - except by adoption - they should therefore not be afforded the advantages of real marriage.


As for your feelings of disgust, I've spoken to gay people who feel much the same way about straight sex, though of course they generally express it a lot more tactfully than you. :rolleyes:


Tactful? Stuff that for a joke. Disgust is disgust so use the word when appropiate - and elaborate if it paints a better picture. You mamby-pamby PC types couch nasty truths in euphemisisms that lead to papering over the social cracks. It is a type of dishonesty. It means nobody calls a spade a spade, because, oh deary me, we mustn't offend anyone.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 05:27 PM
The catagory that I most hate are those who are married and are not actively seeking to procreate. These people are just shacked-up, with a certificate.

Where would you draw the line though? There are varying degrees of intention to procreate or not. And how do you regard heterosexuals who adopt?


I mean, "marriage" is a cuturally universal custom that ties males and females together, with in most cases, presumption of exclusivity sexual access. This is for stabilising the group by way of males being able to say that offspring off their wives are (probably) his.

In some cultures the presumption only goes one way. In any case, our society no longer needs this kind of stuff to stablise the group, nor does it necessarily even work. Presumably as DNA testing becomes even cheaper and easier in the future that side of things will completely disappear.


Tactful? Stuff that for a joke. Disgust is disgust so use the word when appropiate - and elaborate if it paints a better picture.

What I mean is that in describing your disgust, you might want to consider if being so disgusted represents any shortcoming on your behalf, instead of just communicating it in a way that makes it sounds like it's completely fine to be disgusted, and furthermore, attempting to psychologise anyone who isn't.


You mamby-pamby PC types couch nasty truths in euphemisisms that lead to papering over the social cracks.

Firstly, I'm not PC, this was dealt with in reply to firegoat.

Secondly, you're elevating your perceptions to the status of truths then calling them nasty because you don't like them. So who was talking about "intellectual dishonesty"? :p

Thirdly, unless you can demonstrate objective harm to nonconsensual parties, this talk about "social cracks" is more than a bit hysterical. I can think of issues where the PC lobby might be targeted in this manner, but gay marriage is certainly not one of them.

chesslover
08-02-2004, 06:25 PM
Look I don't realy care about same sex couples shacking up together or pledging their undieing love or having a joint bank account et cetera. However, let's keep the word "marriage" for man+woman. Invent some other word for same sex couples, keep "marriage" for the normals.

Matt Sweeney supporting President Bush? :eek: :eek:

Welcome to my world. We can spend a lot of time together (in a non homosexual sense of course!!) talking and admiring the work of President Bush, my political hero

For what it is worth, the polls are showing that President Bush's stance is supported by a majority of americans, and state after state that is controlled by the conservatives are putting legislation to stop homosexual marriages being recognised. So far 38 out of the 50 states have acted thus

There is massive speclation and analysis that Bush will ride on this wave of discontent, and Karl Rove his chief political stategist will be using the record money Bush has raised to launch attack ads that blast homsexual marriages. Indeed President Bush has stated that if relected he supports a constitutional amanedment that prevents homsexual marriages.

So popular is President Bush's stand on this, that even Senator Kerry, the democrat candidate for Presidnet (it looks like baring any upsets) has also attacked the ruling by the MAssachusetts court, as if he supports it Bush will romp home in 2004 in the SOuth and the conservative states

So MAtt's view has a lot of mainstream support in the US

I personally am not a homosexual, and think it is against God. As they say it was Adam and Eve who God created, not Adam and Bruce. However by letting those people marry we can know who are homosexuals and who are not, and thus can keep away from them. If marriage is forbiden,then they will not come out publically, and hence you are in danger of having friends who are homosexual, but who you do not know are homosexuals

So I am anti homosexuals and their lifestyle, but am tolerent of them doing whatever they want as long as they dont convert non homosexuals to their way of life. I am for the marriage act so that we can identify who they are and keep our distances away from these people

firegoat7
08-02-2004, 07:12 PM
Dear chessslover,

I would like to point out to you that according to anthropology the normal human sexual condition(sic) is bi-sexuality. Seems you might have a hard time isolating the masses or yourself!

Regards FG7

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 07:52 PM
However by letting those people marry we can know who are homosexuals and who are not, and thus can keep away from them.

I find this odd. Why would you necessarily want to keep away from a gay person?

Also, allowing marriage will help you identify some people who are gay, but many people of any sexuality never get married, and sometimes people who are actually gay marry opposite-sex partners for the sake of appearances.


If marriage is forbiden,then they will not come out publically, and hence you are in danger of having friends who are homosexual, but who you do not know are homosexuals

I doubt having gay marriage would make that much difference to whether someone came out or not - maybe a little. And really, I generally couldn't care less if people I know are gay or not, that's their business.


So I am anti homosexuals and their lifestyle, but am tolerent of them doing whatever they want as long as they dont convert non homosexuals to their way of life.

Are you saying the latter should be illegal? If so this contradicts the commitments to free speech you've claimed on other issues. Gay people should be allowed to talk positively and openly about their lifestyle, and if someone "chooses" to follow it as a result of that (assuming it even is a choice), then so what.

Rincewind
08-02-2004, 09:10 PM
So I am anti homosexuals and their lifestyle, but am tolerent of them doing whatever they want as long as they dont convert non homosexuals to their way of life. I am for the marriage act so that we can identify who they are and keep our distances away from these people

Perhaps they could be made to where a small bell so you could hear them coming down the street and cross to the other side. Or perhaps allocate each a number and have it tattooed onto their forearms.

Just a couple of suggestions, perhaps your local minister could suggest some others.

As to converting people to their lifestyle, I'm more concerned with the hordes of proselytising Xtians wandering the streets trying to convert the innocent masses to their lifestyle. I don't know about you but Gay Witnesses don't come knocking on my door every other Sunday.

Cat
08-02-2004, 09:43 PM
Agreed what 2 people do in private & consensually is their business. What happens in public is public business.

I've previously suggested that sexuality should perhaps be considered as 2 overlapping normal distributions, rather than 2 poles. It was quite normal in Roman society for a senator to have a wife, a mistress and a young boy. The choice in Roman society to take a young boy would be similar to taking a pet today. I'm not saying this was a proper way to behave, but rather to illustrate that homosexuality and bisexuality have been part of normal human behaviour for thousands of years, and contemporary 'disgust' of homosexual behaviour is a product of social conditioning.

Having said that, social conditioning is not necessarily misplaced. There are 2 points I'd like to make to the PC's, and yes KB you are nauseatingly PC.

The first was a recent case I heard of a Gay couple seeking to parent a child through surrogacy. Now I have grave mis-givings about surrogacy anyway, but this case raises enormously complex ethical issues. For me the main issue is that it is turning a child into a commodity and parenting into a fashion accessory. There are limits as to what can be merchandised and when life expenctancy is falling in many parts of world one has to question whether this is the best application of medical technology? I think the ethics of this could be argued until the 'cows come home'.

Secondly, like Matt I have 3 boys and I am concerned about the increasing 'glamourisation' of what it is to be Gay, as evidenced by some of the TV shows, the Mardi Gras and the almost over-apologetic, over-compensatory fawning over Gay culture, often presented in an appallingly superficial manner. Now don't get me wrong, if one of my boys chooses to be gay, well so-be-it - that would be his choice. But what I do object to is that this is part of the disintegration within in our society of what constitutes 'normal masculinity'. It is becoming increasingly difficult for boys to find appropriate male role models, boys are failing at school, they are experiencing higher rates of depression and suicide, most cases of ADHD are diagnosed in boys and boys are facing increasing alienation within our society.

To be a boy is almost a pathological condition and to be a normal hetero-sexual white male is to be a geek. Quite simply our society has lost perspective.

Gay couples are seeking marital status to obtain legal rights, but I think there needs to be proper debate of what rights should properly follow a gay union. There are a number of obvious limitations;

1. What constitutes a 'marriage' within a religious denomination is the prerogative of that religion.

2. A gay union does not constitute automatic rights to parenting. Biological reproduction is obviously impossible, and in the first case illustrated above, open slather raises serious ethical dilemmas. Should gay parents be competing with heterosexual couples for the right to adopt?

3. All individuals deserve proper financial and legal redress if abused or abandoned by their partner.

There are many other issues, the situation is complex. Unfortunately debate is being reduced to sound-bites and posturing as usual. The only thing for sure is that everybody will be left unhappy.

PHAT
08-02-2004, 09:56 PM
Where would you draw the line though? There are varying degrees of intention to procreate or not. And how do you regard heterosexuals who adopt?

The line is easy to draw - I'll just draw it again, those who "are not actively seeking to procreate." A couple is either rutting without contraception or they are not. Hetros who are actively seeking to adopt is, to me, equivalent to procreate. - they are wanting to for a family.



...our society no longer needs this kind of stuff [marriage] to stablise the group, nor does it necessarily even work.


After water, shelter and food, psychology has identified "family" as the most important enviromnmental factor in creating a functional next generation. Of all the differing modles of "family", thiose with at least one adult male and one adult female appear to have the best outcomes. Marriage is the social (and legal) declaration of an M+F parternship in creating a family. Given that what I have put to you is both self evident, and well researched, your postion seems inconsistant with societal best practise.



Presumably as DNA testing becomes even cheaper and easier in the future that side of things will completely disappear.


When blood transfusions were just starting to be used during the second world war, it was noticed that the blood of close family members were less likely to kill the patient. Further investigation unearthed the A/B/O blood typing and with it, the paterns of genetic inheritance. It was found that 10 to 15 % of children had the wrong father on their birth certificates. This % varies depending on the society and the availability of men. I believe that in Australia the current figure is around 5%.

But what has this got to do with whether or not the word "marriage" should be used for non-family couples?



What I mean is that in describing your disgust, you might want to consider if being so disgusted represents any shortcoming on your behalf, instead of just communicating it in a way that makes it sounds like it's completely fine to be disgusted,...


Primates find the smell of (primate) crap disgusting. It is instinctual. Walking too close to high falls makes us fearful. The male-female attraction is also instinctual. I have no short coming when I feel disgust at certain behaviours. However, to preempt your rebuttel, I think that homosexual feelings are an alternate wiring of of the brain during inutero development. I am not be judgemental in that, I am merely pointing out a difference - like lefthandedness. Nevertheless, I feel disgust. Are you saying that I shouldn't? - and on what grounds?



Secondly, you're elevating your perceptions to the status of truths then calling them nasty because you don't like them. So who was talking about "intellectual dishonesty"? :p


Please do not use quotation marks in a manner that might lead others to believe that I used to term "intelectual dishonesty", - I did not. I was being personally honest and spoke only of my personal perceptions and the personal feelings that they generate. My perceptions are truths to me only. No doubt, some are not disgusted by some B&D fisting, but I am. That is my personal truth.

PHAT
08-02-2004, 10:01 PM
However by letting those people marry we can know who are homosexuals and who are not, and thus can keep away from them. If marriage is forbiden,then they will not come out publically, and hence you are in danger of having friends who are homosexual, but who you do not know are homosexuals.


Sorry CL, but I do not deliberately avoid homosexuals (or even ratbag christians), I simply choose to treat people with respect ... sometimes I fail.

Cat
08-02-2004, 10:04 PM
After water, shelter and food, psychology has identified "family" as the most important enviromnmental factor in creating a functional next generation. Of all the differing modles of "family", thiose with at least one adult male and one adult female appear to have the best outcomes. Marriage is the social (and legal) declaration of an M+F parternship in creating a family. Given that what I have put to you is both self evident, and well researched, your postion seems inconsistant with societal best practise.

Agreed, I think society needs to consider seriously the effects of having large numbers of same sex parents, and also the effect of increasing numbers of women approaching sperm banks for child-rearing.

paulb
08-02-2004, 11:22 PM
True, I do not. I mean "tolerant" as in refaining from intereference in other people's business.
Also, I mean "normal" in a non-judgemental sence - simply a statistical minority group sence.



Sorry mate, here we diverge. I do not find thinking of queer sex anything other than disgust. Ifeel sequeamish - I hope I am permitted to feel sqeamish!! Nevertheless, I tolerate other people concentually interacting in whatever way they like.



Correct, it isn't anyone's damn business what people do in private. However, it is still a matter of tolerance - tolerance of one person by another person. I do not think of it as Hero Hetro Matt vetts Homo Harry. It is just me tolerating another, as I myself wish to be tolerated for the "un-normal" behaviours that I have.


[Edit] PS. I forgot to add, I am only objecting to the use of the word "marriage" be used for same sex marriage-like legal arrangments. I object on the grounds that we need to add words to our language rather than expand the meaning of the words that we already have. Giving an extra meaning to a pre-existing word only makes communication more difficult. (But opens the door for more jokes and puns :) )

Your honesty is refreshing as always.

A couple of points.

"Normal" has a strong moral connotation in most people's ears. I accept that you mean it statistically - non-perjoratively - but if so there are clearer ways to express yourself, eg "heterosexuals" or "the majority of the population". Of course, statistically, we're all abnormal in many ways; the issue always is whether that way is relevant to anything.

Feeling squeamish is your right, of course, though there may well be moral imperatives to change the way we feel about things, I think. (CF Aristotle, who thought morality was largely a matter of educating the emotions )

Interesting question, though, is "are you morally permitted to evince your squeamishness given that it causes hurt"? (Not saying that you do this). Cf a reaction to an obese person; or this situation: I once met a person at a country airport whose face was substantially "deformed" through a congenital condition. I found it difficult to look her in the face, even though she was completely lovely, and I feel shame about that. It's a failing of mine, I think. Interestingly, my partner marched straight up and engaged her in conversation without any qualms; it's behaviour like that that convinces me I'm a lucky guy. The woman, incidentally, was at the airport to meet and greet a wheelchair-bound student, who also found it difficult to look at her.

Regarding the semantic question: seems to me this is a push by gays for full equality, and they rightly perceive that admission to the married "club" is an important sociological milestone. In a sense, it's a territorial battle, a battle for semantic/ideological territory.

Lastly, I find your insistence that marriage means children just so bizarre, just so 100-years-ago, just so Johnny-Howard-do-it-this-way-because-that's-the-way-I-did-it-50-years-ago that it's not funny. I mean it is funny! Hardly anyone thinks that way! With 6 or 7 billion people and bulk enviro problems why do you say this? You're a veritable breeder reactionary! (Is that why they call them "nuclear" families?)

I think most people who get married nowadays don't do so for kids. They do it because it's a nice big ceremony to say we're exclusively together. It does have weight with some people, incidentally. I've lived with my partner for about 20 years and never married and it's amazed me that (10 or 20 years ago, at any rate) our unmarried state was an issue for some people, even people my own age. Maybe it's that sort of reaction that's spurs gays to seek the "societal sanction" of marriage.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 11:30 PM
Having said that, social conditioning is not necessarily misplaced. There are 2 points I'd like to make to the PC's, and yes KB you are nauseatingly PC.

What? Being extremely supportive of gay rights when I disagree with the PC lobby across a very wide range of other issues makes me PC? Whatever. :rolleyes:


For me the main issue is that it is turning a child into a commodity and parenting into a fashion accessory.

How on earth can you say this (without further evidence)? How do you know these people wanted a child "as a fashion commodity" and not simply out of a deep desire to have or raise a child of their own, their sexuality notwithstanding?


But what I do object to is that this is part of the disintegration within in our society of what constitutes 'normal masculinity'. It is becoming increasingly difficult for boys to find appropriate male role models, boys are failing at school, they are experiencing higher rates of depression and suicide, most cases of ADHD are diagnosed in boys and boys are facing increasing alienation within our society.

All these things are true and things I take very seriously, but how is returning to conventional old-fashioned male role models in this society in any way the answer? And do you know whether the use of positive gay role models (and let's face it, it's hardly a 24/7 flood of them) is going to cause more problems in addressing these problems than it solves? Can you think of any one kind of role model for males that is bulletproof anyway - if not, what's wrong with trying to give males as wide a range of options (barring the obviously disfunctional) as possible?


1. What constitutes a 'marriage' within a religious denomination is the prerogative of that religion.

Actually I agree with this one. If gay people join a religion that doesn't accept gay marriage then they should be looking to solutions within that religion (which doesn't preclude public pressure about it). And, generally, they do.


2. A gay union does not constitute automatic rights to parenting. Biological reproduction is obviously impossible, and in the first case illustrated above, open slather raises serious ethical dilemmas. Should gay parents be competing with heterosexual couples for the right to adopt?

What about heterosexual couples who are biologically unable to have children? Adoption isn't biological reproduction in any case and people of any sexuality could want to adopt for superficial reasons.


3. All individuals deserve proper financial and legal redress if abused or abandoned by their partner.

Relevance???


Unfortunately debate is being reduced to sound-bites and posturing as usual.

I don't see you lifting the standard any.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 11:57 PM
A couple is either rutting without contraception or they are not. Hetros who are actively seeking to adopt is, to me, equivalent to procreate. - they are wanting to for a family.

But then gays who are actively seeking to adopt also become equivalent to procreating. In any case, there are shades of grey in the first part, a couple may be vacillating about when and whether to have children, may wish to get married now because of social acceptability with intent to have children ten years down the track (or probably, or maybe ...). Remember, you're talking about a word that's got to have a legal definition, a yes/no that is testable. Going to ask every couple seeking to marry intrusive questions about their intentions?


After water, shelter and food, psychology has identified "family" as the most important enviromnmental factor in creating a functional next generation. Of all the differing modles of "family", thiose with at least one adult male and one adult female appear to have the best outcomes. Marriage is the social (and legal) declaration of an M+F parternship in creating a family. Given that what I have put to you is both self evident, and well researched, your postion seems inconsistant with societal best practise.

What's your source? I haven't followed this debate closely, but there are plenty of dodgy-sounding results from obviously suspicious sources that get thrown around in it. I do remember one major study finding FF parentage, at least, to be no worse than MF parentage, though I have no idea of its credibility. And even if we find MM parentage and FF parentage to both be significantly worse, are they worse than forms of parentage that are far from dissuaded, like single parentage, or indoctrination of children into harmful religious cults?


But what has this got to do with whether or not the word "marriage" should be used for non-family couples?

You were talking about the role of marriage in ensuring that it was known that children were likely to be their purported father's. I'm suggesting that any point that argument posessed is well on its way to obsolescence.


Nevertheless, I feel disgust. Are you saying that I shouldn't? - and on what grounds?

The grounds that it has no purpose in today's society. It may well have had one in the past. Consider spider phobia - in many cases individuals are hard-wired to be very instinctually afraid of spider species that are considerably less harmful than other things they are not afraid of, so the phobia is currently disfunctional. The Uni here does research on it, it is (to some degree at least) curable.


Please do not use quotation marks in a manner that might lead others to believe that I used to term "intelectual dishonesty", - I did not.

Apologies, I'd deleted the part of your text I was replying to there and misremembered it. You only said "dishonesty" - though that was no more defensible.


No doubt, some are not disgusted by some B&D fisting, but I am. That is my personal truth.

No doubt some do not run screaming across the room at the sight of a spider that is known to science to be harmless, but I do. That is my personal truth.

Since when was "B+D fisting" either an all-gay preserve or an activity most gays practice, anyway? Does the straight version make you feel the same way?

Cat
09-02-2004, 12:31 AM
How on earth can you say this (without further evidence)? How do you know these people wanted a child "as a fashion commodity" and not simply out of a deep desire to have or raise a child of their own, their sexuality notwithstanding?

Surrogacy is a problem, full-stop. It is based on the mistaken premise that a mother will carry a child for 9 months, followed by a painless, clinical separation. In reality, no mother can know how she will feel at the end of the pregnancy. Few women are really fully cognisant of the health risks involved and there is no data available of the effect of the process on either mother or child long-term. Once babies are available for purchase, the whole nature of child-rearing is changed. The baby has been bought, it is no longer the product of a 9 month gestation and all that is associated with that.

Obviously some couples will never be able produce children and adoption is the alternative, but traditionally this process is determined by consideration of the needs of the infant, not determined exclusively through commercial transaction. With a limited number of babies available for adoption, it is quite reasonable to ask whether homosexual couple should have rights equal to heterosexual couples. At the end of the day, the welfare of the child should be the prime consideration. No data is available to determine what effect same-sex parenting will have on outcomes. As Matt says, outcomes are best where there is one father and one mother in the household.

Doesn't matter about desire, homosexuals cannot have their own children, only someone elses. The primacy of 'rights' lies with the infant, their right to the best home possible. When it comes to choosing a hetero-sexual or hom-sexual couple to parent that child, it's simply a fact of life that most agencies would choose a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple - so would most parents for that matter, it would seem the 'safer' decision.

There are also the obvious issues of biology, that mothers and fathers are different, their roles, their virtues and their instincts are different. No amount of camp can hide the hairy ass. And which of us would choose to grow in either an entirely phallocentric or cliterocentric environment? Who'd want to go to the football with their mum, or rest their head in their dad's hairy chest?

It's not that homosexual parents won't necessarily be good, more that general standard of parenting in the West is bad enough anyway without potentially making things any worse.


All these things are true and things I take very seriously, but how is returning to conventional old-fashioned male role models in this society in any way the answer? And do you know whether the use of positive gay role models (and let's face it, it's hardly a 24/7 flood of them) is going to cause more problems in addressing these problems than it solves? Can you think of any one kind of role model for males that is bulletproof anyway - if not, what's wrong with trying to give males as wide a range of options (barring the obviously disfunctional) as possible?

I'm flat out trying to find good role models for my kids. One of my patients was a make up artist on 'The Lord of the Rings', and she gave me pictures of Aragorn, Legolas and Frodo (bogusly autographed) for my kids. They carry the pictures everywhere!

Where are the positive gay role models? Take "Queer as Folk" or the Mardi Gras. Would I encourage my boys to be sleazey, camp, self-obessed, ostentatious, flirtacious... need I go on? Neither would I encourage these behaviours in the hetero-sexual frame.

3. All individuals deserve proper financial and legal redress if abused or abandoned by their partner.

Relevance?

Simply that a person in a homo-sexual relationship should have the same legal rights to re-dress as the heterosexual.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 01:37 AM
Surrogacy is a problem, full-stop. It is based on the mistaken premise that a mother will carry a child for 9 months, followed by a painless, clinical separation. In reality, no mother can know how she will feel at the end of the pregnancy. Few women are really fully cognisant of the health risks involved and there is no data available of the effect of the process on either mother or child long-term. Once babies are available for purchase, the whole nature of child-rearing is changed. The baby has been bought, it is no longer the product of a 9 month gestation and all that is associated with that.

Well, it is the product of a 9-month gestation, but not by its adoptive parent. :p

I'm not sure how much of an issue the wellbeing of the surrogate mother is. There are all kinds of arguably stupid things you are legally allowed to do for money that may affect you in some harmful way.

In any case, this argument above doesn't apply to lesbian parenting where the child is the biological offspring of a member of the couple. And is the surrogate child necessarily a "commodity" - aren't there cases where people do it for a friend or relative for free?

I accept that the wellbeing of the child as a result needs to be studied, though there are plenty of things that are known to be harmful to an unborn child (who is later to be born) and are legal.


Obviously some couples will never be able produce children and adoption is the alternative, but traditionally this process is determined by consideration of the needs of the infant, not determined exclusively through commercial transaction. With a limited number of babies available for adoption, it is quite reasonable to ask whether homosexual couple should have rights equal to heterosexual couples. At the end of the day, the welfare of the child should be the prime consideration. No data is available to determine what effect same-sex parenting will have on outcomes.

This is leading to a bit of a vicious cycle where you say "we're not going to allow widespread same-sex parenting because we don't know the outcomes, and we're not going to find out the outcomes because we're not going to allow widespread same-sex parenting".

And is the number of babies available for adoption really limited, or is that just the number of white babies? (I'm just asking, I don't know anything about this issue beyond something I heard a very long time ago.)

Anyway, here's one solitary datum for you: a member of my family was raised by a lesbian couple in the days when such things weren't even talked about, and turned out fine. :cool:


Doesn't matter about desire, homosexuals cannot have their own children, only someone elses.

Again, a child of a lesbian mother can be the biological child of one of its parents. There are even cases of a gay man and a lesbian woman co-operating in the raising of their mutual biological child, although obviously this is not the same thing as having MF parents who live together in a committed sexual relationship.


The primacy of 'rights' lies with the infant, their right to the best home possible.

Again - should everything that might harm the child be banned? Have we even banned smoking while pregnant yet?


There are also the obvious issues of biology, that mothers and fathers are different, their roles, their virtues and their instincts are different.

Often, but always? I'll grant you that men can't breastfeed (for instance) but a number of other things come down more to the individual parent.


Who'd want to go to the football with their mum, or rest their head in their dad's hairy chest?

I don't think either going to sport with a female parent or getting physical affection from a male one would really be all that rare.


It's not that homosexual parents won't necessarily be good, more that general standard of parenting in the West is bad enough anyway without potentially making things any worse.

I wonder if it's bad enough that it would be very difficult to make it worse.


I'm flat out trying to find good role models for my kids. One of my patients was a make up artist on 'The Lord of the Rings', and she gave me pictures of Aragorn, Legolas and Frodo (bogusly autographed) for my kids. They carry the pictures everywhere!

But isn't that Legolas a bit effeminate with his long hair and pointy ears and all? What about Frodo's relationship with Sam, what may have seemed quaint in the book comes across camp as hell on the screen. :p


Where are the positive gay role models? Take "Queer as Folk" or the Mardi Gras. Would I encourage my boys to be sleazey, camp, self-obessed, ostentatious, flirtacious... need I go on? Neither would I encourage these behaviours in the hetero-sexual frame.

If I agreed with his environmental politics more I'd say that Senator Bob Brown was an obvious example of a positive gay role model. Maybe he is even despite those differences - he's admired in what doesn't seem at all an unhealthy way by loads of teenagers down here. I don't think a community celebration like the Mardi Gras is one-sidedly "self-obsessed", and anyone allowed to watch a gay mature-audience show like "Queer As Folk" is either old enough or badly parented enough that it's hardly going to do them any harm.


Simply that a person in a homo-sexual relationship should have the same legal rights to re-dress as the heterosexual.

Yes, I'd agree with that as a part of any legalisation of marriage.

In fact in Tas for couples who register their relationship as "significant" under new legislation these rights already exist.

PHAT
09-02-2004, 06:50 AM
"Normal" has a strong moral connotation in most people's ears. I accept that you mean it statistically - non-perjoratively - but if so there are clearer ways to express yourself, ...


Yes, you are right. The term "normal" has baggage and I ought to avoid it.




... Aristotle, who thought morality was largely a matter of educating the emotions



Core morality or non-core morality? We must acknowledge that there is instinct, and it drives core moralities. Sexual orietation probably is not a core morality - so I think I would agree with you that homosexuality is permitted or not depending on culture.



Regarding the semantic question: seems to me this is a push by gays for full equality, and they rightly perceive that admission to the married "club" is an important sociological milestone. In a sense, it's a territorial battle, a battle for semantic/ideological territory.


I wish they would stop it then. The weddings and marriage niche is already well populated with fully adapted organisms. Gay should find there own niche of coupling. Perhaps they should concider that if they want so much to be accepted as mainstream they should choose hetrosexuality.



Lastly, I find your insistence that marriage means children just so bizarre, just so 100-years-ago, just so Johnny-Howard-do-it-this-way-because-that's-the-way-I-did-it-50-years-ago that it's not funny. I mean it is funny! Hardly anyone thinks that way! With 6 or 7 billion people and bulk enviro problems why do you say this? You're a veritable breeder reactionary! (Is that why they call them "nuclear" families?)


Yeah, I know, I sound a bit neanderthal somtimes. :lol: I acknowledge that my position is not a good fit with today's level of sophistication. I guess that my putting "family" at the top of the priorities is my baggage showing. But seriously, I have no solution (yet) to offer for reconsiling, over population with my breeder advocasy. Something will have to be ditched probably the third world and materialism.



I think most people who get married nowadays don't do so for kids. They do it because it's a nice big ceremony to say we're exclusively together. It does have weight with some people, incidentally. I've lived with my partner for about 20 years and never married and it's amazed me that (10 or 20 years ago, at any rate) our unmarried state was an issue for some people, even people my own age. Maybe it's that sort of reaction that's spurs gays to seek the "societal sanction" of marriage.

Societal sanction? For what exactly - shacking-up together? I reckon couples who divorce without having had children should be fined $50k and get 12 months gaol for wasting everyone's time.

bobby1972
09-02-2004, 08:49 AM
NORMAL yes,thats a word ,why are people afraid to use the word normal .and not afraid to use a word like homophobic,politically correct crap,every one tries to legitimise and sanitise everything today why .they are not normal and thats it.

Garvinator
09-02-2004, 10:08 AM
Perhaps they should concider that if they want so much to be accepted as mainstream they should choose hetrosexuality.
Yes I agree that some women especially, after a few bad male relationships, choose :confused: homosexuality. But I would say that for the high majority of males, they dont choose homosexuality, they are born that way. So it is not a choice for them. How would you tell a 13 year old teenager who finds his/her own sex more attractive that the way they feel is wrong and they should choose the opposite sex.

that would be like me saying to you matthew that you should like men instead of women and that because you like women, you have got it wrong :doh:

Garvinator
09-02-2004, 10:09 AM
NORMAL yes,thats a word ,why are people afraid to use the word normal .and not afraid to use a word like homophobic,politically correct crap,every one tries to legitimise and sanitise everything today why .they are not normal and thats it.
define normal plz.

arosar
09-02-2004, 10:23 AM
So is homosexuality a product of nature or nurture? There was a post up there which basically lamented the loss of [straight] male role models, hence my question.

AR

antichrist
09-02-2004, 11:00 AM
So is homosexuality a product of nature or nurture? There was a post up there which basically lamented the loss of [straight] male role models, hence my question.

AR

I think in some cases a result of nature only
and in other cases a of a combination of both.

I don't know about a case of nurture only.

But my impulsive response to watching males groping etc. is the same as MS (Metro-Sexual). But this should not prevent them from having full rights, I only wish they would their groping in private. There is a contradiction in one sentence.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 06:28 PM
they are not normal and thats it.

Nor are chessplayers.

PHAT
09-02-2004, 08:49 PM
... there are shades of grey in the first part, a couple may be vacillating about when and whether to have children, may wish to get married now because of social acceptability with intent to have children ten years down the track (or probably, or maybe ...). Remember, you're talking about a word that's got to have a legal definition, a yes/no that is testable. Going to ask every couple seeking to marry intrusive questions about their intentions?

Yes, why not? Scientist have to say what the grant money will be used for (ARC). Some scholarships have a "pay-back with employment clause". Charged people can be released on a bond.

You see society can and does impose restrictions depending on intent. Why not, "If you want the advantages that society gives to you for being married, you have to undertake the responsabilities of marriage."



"Of all the differing modles of "family", thiose with at least one adult male and one adult female appear to have the best outcomes." -MS

What's your source?


http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11899016




And even if we find MM parentage and FF parentage to both be significantly worse, are they worse than forms of parentage that are far from dissuaded, like single parentage, or indoctrination of children into harmful religious cults?



Quoting that some hetro parents are shockers does not in any way support your assertion that homo parents are no worse than hetero parents. When you try this illogical trick, you look like a PC warrior clutching at straws.




Consider spider phobia - in many cases individuals are hard-wired to be very instinctually afraid of spider species that are considerably less harmful than other things they are not afraid of, so the phobia is currently disfunctional. The Uni here does research on it, it is (to some degree at least) curable.


I hope you aren't suggesting that my disgust at homosexual sex is "to some degree at least curable," as if disgust is a disease.




Since when was "B+D fisting" either an all-gay preserve or an activity most gays practice, anyway? Does the straight version make you feel the same way?


The straight version is weird. The gay version is weird and disgusting.


But lets get this back on track. What I personally feel about homosexual behaviour is not the important issue. What is important is that you seem to think that it is somehow OK to let homosexual couples adopt children. The fact that we don't know with reasonable certainty that MM or FF parents are generally OK is reason enough to not allow it. Only a person with with PC tattooed on their forehead, sucking up to their gay friends, and without the experiance of being a parent would advocate letting the "Homosexual Parent Experiment" run. Your lack of concern for the possiblity that your PC stance could ruin some young lives, makes you a monster.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 11:03 PM
The Massachusetts courts have give till mid May for the Massachusetts legislature to comply with it's ruling. The state parliment is passing a constitutional amendement that will take away the right of gays to marry - but the earliest the people can vote on it is in 2006 - so it looks as if the law will come into effect before it can be dismantled

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/08/samesex.opponents.ap/index.html

Interesting is the slim margin of the judges verdict in the Massachusetts supreme court - just 4 to 3. It shows how one of the real prizes of the Presidency and the State Governorship is the ability to appoint judges, for critical social laws that ended segregation, allowed abortion etc cam via teh courts - not the state parliments or Congress.

Opinion polls in normally liberal massachusetts show that a majority are against the decision to allow gays to marry - and the politicans in even liberal massachusetts are joining the bandwagon. Like I stated, this will probably be a big issue for teh 2004 Presidential and state elections

As for my statement about not wanting to associate with gay people earlier, that is my personal preference and my wish. This is the same as not wanting to associate with bikies, heroin smokers, gun users etc. In the privacy of my personal life I am entitled to choose and decide who I and my partner associate with and mix with. I should not be condemed for this

PHAT
09-02-2004, 11:09 PM
In the privacy of my personal life I am entitled to choose and decide who I and my partner associate with and mix with. I should not be condemed for this

Do you really decide who your partner will associate and mix with? :eek:

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 11:16 PM
Yes, why not? Scientist have to say what the grant money will be used for (ARC). Some scholarships have a "pay-back with employment clause". Charged people can be released on a bond.

Incredibly weak analogy, the issue is not conditions per se, it is those conditions being intrusive and personal. Intrusive and personal conditions are uncommon - Centrelink's bizarre bureaucracy surrounding whether two people are partners being one of very few examples I can think of.


Why not, "If you want the advantages that society gives to you for being married, you have to undertake the responsabilities of marriage."

I do not accept that society in general agrees with your definition of those responsibilities.

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out shortly (computer's having minor problems with Acrobat at the moment.)


Quoting that some hetro parents are shockers does not in any way support your assertion that homo parents are no worse than hetero parents. When you try this illogical trick, you look like a PC warrior clutching at straws.

Apart from my comments about possible study results re FF parents, where did I assert this?


I hope you aren't suggesting that my disgust at homosexual sex is "to some degree at least curable," as if disgust is a disease.

I have no idea if it's curable and no idea if it's a disease. But I'd be surprised if it's doing you any actual good.

By the way, you groundlessly called into question my statement that I was neither repulsed nor aroused by gay images, so I should actually be free to spout any assertion I like about your psychology unsubstantiated without penalty or you complaining for the duration of the thread. :D


The straight version is weird. The gay version is weird and disgusting.

Would you agree that this bias has no basis in reason?


The fact that we don't know with reasonable certainty that MM or FF parents are generally OK is reason enough to not allow it.

We know with reasonable certainty that all kinds of things that are legal are definitely very harmful to children, so unless you want all of them outlawed too you have no case.

You will notice that when the Harry Potter books were first released there was an enormous outcry from Christian groups saying that Harry Potter books would damage children. Did we know with "reasonable certainty" (whatever that is) that Harry Potter books would be OK? (I could probably think of much stronger examples than this one, are we to take the general approach of prohibiting any change because we don't know if it will be harmful?)


Only a person with with PC tattooed on their forehead, sucking up to their gay friends, and without the experiance of being a parent would advocate letting the "Homosexual Parent Experiment" run.

Barring any gay people who might be reading this and wondering why they bothered to take up the game in the first place, I am not expecting this to be seen by any of my "gay friends", nor will I be telling them about it, so there goes your "sucking up" suggestion.

In a previous post I mentioned that a member of my family was brought up by lesbians. I will add to that that that person is a straight parent and agrees with my views on this completely. Another Sweeney generalisation busted by a single counterexample. :p

So that leaves only the PC label, and if my stance on this makes me PC then your stance on this makes you at least a card-carrying Lib. I really don't see what generalisations are acheiving for your cause.


Your lack of concern for the possiblity that your PC stance could ruin some young lives, makes you a monster.

You never seemed too concerned about any potential impact on young lives of some of the graphic material you post here on a BB meant to be readable by children, or of your posting while drunk, so if I'm a monster, well hey, two's company. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 11:37 PM
As for my statement about not wanting to associate with gay people earlier, that is my personal preference and my wish. This is the same as not wanting to associate with bikies, heroin smokers, gun users etc.

I don't tend to associate with heroin smokers either. :owned:


In the privacy of my personal life I am entitled to choose and decide who I and my partner associate with and mix with. I should not be condemed for this

But such things can limit your range of friends, so it's up to you to decide whether that's worth it. Why would you not associate with bikies, junkies or shooters - disapproval of their lifestyle or personal risk to yourself? I know a few bikers (admittedly of the more mellow and greying cohort) and they're fine. Others may not be - it varies.

I mentioned that I once shared a house with a gay man. That was in student housing where flatmates were assigned semi-randomly. Another flatmate the year after that was a gun owner who was clearly mentally ill and who was eventually expelled from the University here for allegedly threatening to kill the Vice Chancellor. Not an experience I would be keen to repeat at all, although I do not feel I was at that much risk from him. But a friend's father is an avid game hunter, owns several guns and maintains and secures them responsibly. Game hunting's not my thing, but I've got no problems associating with him.

Cat
10-02-2004, 12:10 AM
=Kevin Bonham]

I'm not sure how much of an issue the wellbeing of the surrogate mother is. There are all kinds of arguably stupid things you are legally allowed to do for money that may affect you in some harmful way.

In any case, this argument above doesn't apply to lesbian parenting where the child is the biological offspring of a member of the couple. And is the surrogate child necessarily a "commodity" - aren't there cases where people do it for a friend or relative for free?

I accept that the wellbeing of the child as a result needs to be studied, though there are plenty of things that are known to be harmful to an unborn child (who is later to be born) and are legal.

Commercial trafficking of children is a major world-wide problem and surrogacy is part of the picture. A few years ago The Guardian reported a story where South American mothers were selling their children for $10 000 U.S. for adoption by wealthy families in the West. $10 000 was enough to alleviate the family poverty and they believed their children would recieve a better life than otherwise possible. In fact, the infants were being slaughtered and their organs delivered for transplantation. The traffickers would recieve $10 000 for the heart, each kidney and liver, a $30 000 profit per child. The main recipient for the organs was Switzerland.

This is not an isolated incident. The merchandising of children is an extremely concerning issue. I have friends who have adopted children commercially from poorer countries and thankfully these children have found a good home. But I strongly oppose this growing trend which is virtually impossible to police. They were both heterosexual couples unable to obtain a child through adoption in Australia despite being wonderful people and being comfortably disposed.

I believe that the placement of children for adoption should be above commercial interest and should be determined in the child's best interests by professionals that properly understand those childs needs.


This is leading to a bit of a vicious cycle where you say "we're not going to allow widespread same-sex parenting because we don't know the outcomes, and we're not going to find out the outcomes because we're not going to allow widespread same-sex parenting".


There is no natural law permitting 1 man or 1 woman, 2 men or 2 women, 3 men or 3 women reproductive success. Their only hope of entering parenthood is either with the assistance of society / medical intervention or through personal arrangement. As I have said previously what people do in private is their own affair provided it is consensual. If seeking medical or social intervention it is society's right to demand that such intervention is seen to be in societys interests.

The object in question is not an inaminate possession to be acquired. Is the request the selfless act of parenting or a selfish act of desire? Society has a duty to ask these questions in our social interest. Are the couple being entirely honest when they suggest they are entirely capable of meeting the childs needs? The onus is on the same sex couple to demonstrate they can properly meet this criterion, not on society to naively accept that the difference is only superficial


And is the number of babies available for adoption really limited,

Yes, if a heteroseuxal couple under 30 sought adoption they may just be lucky to sneak in under the age limit (I think around 38) by the time their turn arrived.


Anyway, here's one solitary datum for you: a member of my family was raised by a lesbian couple in the days when such things weren't even talked about, and turned out fine. :cool:

It wasn't you then?


Again, a child of a lesbian mother can be the biological child of one of its parents. There are even cases of a gay man and a lesbian woman co-operating in the raising of their mutual biological child, although obviously this is not the same thing as having MF parents who live together in a committed sexual relationship

Again - should everything that might harm the child be banned? Have we even banned smoking while pregnant yet?

I'm not suggesting banning anything, just that the entry into adoptive parenting should be rigorous and the merchanising of children is an abhorrence. Society should be seeking to improve standards of parenting not loosening them. I'm sure there are many same-sex couples that would make excellent parents, it's simply that they're competing with hetero-sexual couples and society's view is biased towards heterosexuality - and rightly so until clear evidence emerges that this bias is unwarranted.



But isn't that Legolas a bit effeminate with his long hair and pointy ears and all? What about Frodo's relationship with Sam, what may have seemed quaint in the book comes across camp as hell on the screen.

I guess we all see what we want to see!




If I agreed with his environmental politics more I'd say that Senator Bob Brown was an obvious example of a positive gay role model. Maybe he is even despite those differences - he's admired in what doesn't seem at all an unhealthy way by loads of teenagers down here. I don't think a community celebration like the Mardi Gras is one-sidedly "self-obsessed", and anyone allowed to watch a gay mature-audience show like "Queer As Folk" is either old enough or badly parented enough that it's hardly going to do them any harm.

Look, its the gay community itself that's creating these terrible stereo-types. I don't think I could imagine anything more trashy or crap than the Gay Mardi Gras. Its almost as if somebody has gone out of their way to tarnish the Gay image. It's the worse advertisement for homo-sexuality imaginable.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 12:53 AM
Commercial trafficking of children is a major world-wide problem and surrogacy is part of the picture.

I'm not disputing that there's a commercial aspect to surrogacy a lot of the time, even most - just saying that it is not necessarily a commercial activity in every case. Amazing example, by the way.


I believe that the placement of children for adoption should be above commercial interest and should be determined in the child's best interests by professionals that properly understand those childs needs.

I would generally agree with this, ie the decisions should be made by qualified professionals, not by $$$. Would this really rule out gay adoptions entirely though, even if gay parenting was considered slightly sub-optimal, especially if there is not a big demand for adoptions from the "third world" relative to the number of babies available for adoption? (Again, I don't know if the latter is the case or not).


There is no natural law permitting 1 man or 1 woman, 2 men or 2 women, 3 men or 3 women reproductive success. Their only hope of entering parenthood is either with the assistance of society / medical intervention or through personal arrangement. As I have said previously what people do in private is their own affair provided it is consensual. If seeking medical or social intervention it is society's right to demand that such intervention is seen to be in societys interests.

Perhaps, but society needs to be consistent about that. "Society" should not be imposing that constraint in some cases and ignoring it in others - but clearly it does ignore it in others, eg we are happy to provide publicly funded medical support to individuals who do all kinds of stupid things to themselves.

In any case, what about if it is done through the private health system (is this allowed?)?


The object in question is not an inaminate possession to be acquired. Is the request the selfless act of parenting or a selfish act of desire? Society has a duty to ask these questions in our social interest. Are the couple being entirely honest when they suggest they are entirely capable of meeting the childs needs? The onus is on the same sex couple to demonstrate they can properly meet this criterion, not on society to naively accept that the difference is only superficial

The onus is also on every straight couple to demonstrate exactly the same thing then. Straight couples sometimes have children for utterly self-indulgent reasons, a common one I've heard being "so there will be someone to look after me when I'm older". So I do not think this difference is relevant.


It wasn't you then?

No. :D


I guess we all see what we want to see!

Actually my partner suggested all the hobbits had the hots for each other, and now I can't help "noticing" it. Who knows what Peter Jackson had in mind in the way he translated Tolkien to screen? :eek:


Look, its the gay community itself that's creating these terrible stereo-types. I don't think I could imagine anything more trashy or crap than the Gay Mardi Gras. Its almost as if somebody has gone out of their way to tarnish the Gay image. It's the worse advertisement for homo-sexuality imaginable.

I haven't paid it much attention lately apart from seeing which homophobic political figures get the raspberry each year and how offended they get about it. Maybe I should watch next year's telecast, you can strap some electrodes to me to monitor my response and Sweeney owes me a hugely grovelling apology if I fail to be either repulsed or aroused. :p

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 03:16 AM
OK, have now looked up the papers cited by Matthew.




http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf.

Study cites numerous studies claiming no significant psychological adjustment difference between FF parented children and other children - much as I remembered (and also contradicting suggestions that gay parents are necessarily worse parents - we need to seperate the issue of the child's broader social experience from the issue of quality of parenting). Study deals with social experiences of children of gay or lesbian (chiefly lesbian) parents. Negative experiences (where found) are attributed to lack of education of other children about gay issues, prejudice by other children, discrimination by teachers etc. Also you will note that the study also cites positive experiences as well, so it is not like the child's experience is universally, reliably or an overall negative (again in contradiction to your views). It is just that there is a particular negative aspect experienced by some and down partly to the attitudes of others, not solely to the sexuality of their parents.

In citing this one to support your case you are really walking into a contradiction. You say that existing "PC" attitudes are causing harm to children who are raised by gay parents. Yet you don't acknowledge that wholeheartedly adopting progressive remedies to the social problems these children experience is likely to do much to make the problem go away. On your form so far, I might expect you to write off anti-homophobia campaigns in schools as "PC", as if this shallow shockjockery was some sort of argument-stopper.

I received a lot of teasing at school for simply being "different" in all kinds of ways. This included being intellecutally years ahead of nearly all the other kids (a situation not assisted when I was put back from grade 4 to grade 3 on moving to Tasmania because of missing the age cutoff by three days), but also included simply being independent, nonconformist, and having different interests. Having been through this, I find the idea of not allowing a child to come into the world simply because they will experience vilification in the playground - which seems to be where your citing of this study would be heading - absolutely ludicrous. Surely you of all people would not believe it is monstrous to bring a child into the world knowing that their distinctive nature may cause them some adversity? (Sounds wimpier than the wimpiest PC and much like a variant of the "who am I to bring a child into the world where it will suffer" mentality championed by some of the CBCs whose attitudes you so dislike. I wish to point out that this is not among my reasons for not breeding.)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11899016

Ah yes, very reputable stuff this one. We are dealing with a paper by researchers from the Family Research Institute Inc. (http://www.familyresearchinst.org) and a quick flick through their website will make it clear what their agenda is. Doesn't mean their study is necessarily rubbish, but does mean you would want to see independent replication or at least acceptance (given that this is content analysis) of the basic findings and conclusions. Of course, clicking on the comment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12353800) on the Abstract might have given you a fair idea of some of the study's likely deficits - no control group for the claims of incidence of homosexuality or bisexuality in the child :rolleyes: (these based on pitiably small sample sizes anyway) and the negative experiences that are reported being more of the nature reported in the other study above - teasing and bullying but not psychological trauma directly caused by sexuality.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 08:58 AM
I don't tend to associate with heroin smokers either. :owned:


You can smoke H - it is just rather uneconomic.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 09:22 AM
Maybe I should watch next year's telecast, you can strap some electrodes to me to monitor my response and Sweeney owes me a hugely grovelling apology if I fail to be either repulsed or aroused. :p

Are these electrodes to be connected to a voltameter or the power grid?

PHAT
10-02-2004, 10:02 AM
...the issue is not conditions per se, it is those conditions being intrusive and personal. Intrusive and personal conditions are uncommon - Centrelink's bizarre bureaucracy surrounding whether two people are partners being one of very few examples I can think of.


Centrelink's methods for determining "partner" are quite reasonable. If the society grants a privaledge according to single/partnered/married status, then society has every right to investigate claims related to that status.

In fact, what could be more personal a question than, "Are you a pedophile?" We ask this question all the time when it comes to working with children [permission to request a police records check].



Apart from my comments about possible study results re FF parents, where did I assert this?
Here you say:
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]And even if we find MM parentage and FF parentage to both be significantly worse, are they worse than forms of parentage that are far from dissuaded, like single parentage, or indoctrination of children into harmful religious cults?[/i]

I replied:

Quoting that some hetro parents are shockers does not in any way support your assertion that homo parents are no worse than hetero parents.

The phrase "And even if..." shows that you do not believe that FF?MM parents are significantly worse. Further more you later quote anachdotal evidence in support of you position.




Would you agree that ["The straight version is weird. The gay version is weird and disgusting.- MS"] this bias has no basis in reason?

yes





We know with reasonable certainty that all kinds of things that are legal are definitely very harmful to children, so unless you want all of them outlawed too you have no case.


Dude, without a doubt this is THE most stupid argument you have ever used on this BB. This logic [sic] could be used to say, "Since we do not criminalise smoking by gestating mothers, we have no case for retaining automobile child-restraint legislation." Wake up to your self. Just because a wrong is still permitted, we cannot cynically use it as excuse to perpetrate another wrong.




In a previous post I mentioned that a member of my family was brought up by lesbians. I will add to that that that person is a straight parent and agrees with my views on this completely. Another Sweeney generalisation busted by a single counterexample. :p


Poking your tunge out at me does not make your argument right. Furthermore, you must know that only a dim wit attemps to disprove the general be using the specific.



You never seemed too concerned about any potential impact on young lives of some of the graphic material you post here on a BB meant to be readable by children, or of your posting while drunk, so if I'm a monster, well hey, two's company. :hand:

Any impact my post have on any children old enough and motivated enough to want to read these threads, is positive, not negative.

But remember, PCmeister, it is you that has to defend your 'wisdom' in packing off a baby to the Queer as Folk address.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 10:39 AM
...we need to seperate the issue of the child's broader social experience from the issue of quality of parenting.


We cannot separate them. We are debating whether FF/MM couples should be given babies to adopt. Example: would it be 'wise' to allow a MF couple living in the slums of Rio to adopt a child from Autralia? No?... No! In the same manner, children from a FF/MM home are going to cop a hinding in schools. I do not like the fact, but it is true nonetheless. Therefore, it is irresponsable to put a baby with FF/MM couple ahead of an eqivalent M/F couple.


In citing this one to support your case you are really walking into a contradiction. You say that existing "PC" attitudes are causing harm to children who are raised by gay parents. Yet you don't acknowledge that wholeheartedly adopting progressive remedies to the social problems these children experience is likely to do much to make the problem go away. [emphesis by MS]

Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start "adopting progressive remedies to the social problems these children experience'. Since it is not, the FF?MM adoption rights are not currently tenable.




I received a lot of teasing at school for simply being "different" in all kinds of ways. ... but also included simply being independent, nonconformist, and having different interests.

You are not the Lone Ranger.




... I find the idea of not allowing a child to come into the world simply because they will experience vilification in the playground - which seems to be where your citing of this study would be heading - absolutely ludicrous.


No. We are not talking about "bringing a child into the world." We are debating whether, given the choice, a baby should go to a FF/MM or a MF home.




Ah yes, very reputable stuff this one. ...and a quick flick through their website will make it clear what their agenda is. Doesn't mean their study is necessarily rubbish, but does mean you would want to see independent replication or at least acceptance (given that this is content analysis) of the basic findings and conclusions.

Neither you or I are expert in the area. So, we look at the Journal - is it a reputable peer reviewed journal? Yes. No doubt it has some bias - yes I had read the "comment" link. But it is part of the literature and you must accept it as part of the paradigm.


...and the negative experiences that are reported being more of the nature reported in the other study above - teasing and bullying but not psychological trauma directly caused by sexuality.

Correct - not "directly" caused by sexuality. However it is indirectly caused by sexuality and that is a good enough reason to reject FF/MM parentage for a adoptive baby.



You are on a hiding to nothing on this one. Cut your losses and run because you are being as irrationaly PC as CL is irrationally God-fearing.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 03:11 PM
Centrelink's methods for determining "partner" are quite reasonable. If the society grants a privaledge according to single/partnered/married status, then society has every right to investigate claims related to that status.

I am not sure how many people would accept Centrelink's methods if they actually knew what kinds of questions can be asked. It is not an issue that receives a great deal of publicity.


In fact, what could be more personal a question than, "Are you a pedophile?" We ask this question all the time when it comes to working with children [permission to request a police records check].

Weak analogy again. Once you are convicted (or suspected?) of an offence it is no longer a personal matter.


The phrase "And even if..." shows that you do not believe that FF?MM parents are significantly worse. Further more you later quote anachdotal evidence in support of you position.

Bzzt, you've just lost the right to call me a pedant for the remainder of this thread with that failed attempt at pedantry. A construction of the type "And even if they are worse parents" means that I am unsure, not that I am saying they are definitely not. :doh: And see further down on worse parent vs worse experience.


Dude, without a doubt this is THE most stupid argument you have ever used on this BB. This logic [sic] could be used to say, "Since we do not criminalise smoking by gestating mothers, we have no case for retaining automobile child-restraint legislation." Wake up to your self. Just because a wrong is still permitted, we cannot cynically use it as excuse to perpetrate another wrong.

The point is that some people bang on and on about the supposed wrongs of gay parenting on flimsy evidence while saying nothing about much more serious wrongs. Now, if gay parenting is bad enough to be banned (which you are a million miles away from convincing me of) then indeed, ban it irrespective of the other wrongs. My point is, though, that the lack of action on these other wrongs, from those who claim to be concerned about the wellbeing of the child, shows that their real concern is otherwise. It is a dislike or disgust at gay people hiding (or in your case not) behind a veneer of concern about child welfare.


Furthermore, you must know that only a dim wit attemps to disprove the general be using the specific.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You said "only a person ... without the experiance of being a parent would advocate letting the "Homosexual Parent Experiment" run." I gave you an example of a person who has that experience who advocates this, and thereby falsified your absolutist statement. If you wish to dispute this, the only dimwit here is you.


Any impact my post have on any children old enough and motivated enough to want to read these threads, is positive, not negative.

Very many parents would disagree.


But remember, PCmeister, it is you that has to defend your 'wisdom' in packing off a baby to the Queer as Folk address.

No, you are the one putting yourself on a lofty I-know-what's-best-for-the-children pedestal.



...we need to seperate the issue of the child's broader social experience from the issue of quality of parenting.

We cannot separate them.

The difference between difficulties that are the result of bad parenting rather than social attitudes is absolutely critical here. If gay and lesbian parenting was psychologically and inevitably massively deficient no matter what the social attitudes surrounding it, that would be a very different matter.


We are debating whether FF/MM couples should be given babies to adopt. Example: would it be 'wise' to allow a MF couple living in the slums of Rio to adopt a child from Autralia? No?... No! In the same manner, children from a FF/MM home are going to cop a hinding in schools. I do not like the fact, but it is true nonetheless. Therefore, it is irresponsable to put a baby with FF/MM couple ahead of an eqivalent M/F couple.

The Rio example concerns extreme and rather reliable differences in material wellbeing. Read the first source you cited more carefully and see if the differences in gay/lesbian parenting vs heterosexual parenting are so extreme or so reliable. Read the positives as well as the negatives.


Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start "adopting progressive remedies to the social problems these children experience'. Since it is not, the FF?MM adoption rights are not currently tenable.

Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children how to even attempt to treat Aboriginal people as equals. Since it is not, racial integration in Australian schools is not currently tenable.

Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children to view men and women as equal. Since it is not, allowing girls into male-dominated areas of the curriculum in Australia is not currently tenable.

Look be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children to care about the environment. Since it is not, having schoolchildren working in landcare and learning about threatened species is not currently tenable ...

(On the last one, I actually have an issue with the amount of environmental brainwashing that goes on in schools. Stick that in your Kevin-is-PC pipe and smoke it. :hmm: )

It's amazing really, people taking your line rant and rave about how PC is taking over the world, but when it suits your argument you say society isn't ready for change and can't be changed. :rolleyes:


You are not the Lone Ranger.

Never said I was, I just knew writing that in that way would stir some kind of cheapo out of you.


No. We are not talking about "bringing a child into the world." We are debating whether, given the choice, a baby should go to a FF/MM or a MF home.

Artificial insemenation, which is bringing a child into the world, is also being discussed here. Also, surrogacy to fill an existing demand is being discussed. It's true that a surrogate child, having been born, could go to a different home, but without the demand for it, it would never have existed.

As for adoption, as I said in reply to David I'm happy for these decisions to be made by qualified professionals. But I bet your kid from the slums of Rio would be a lot better off adopted by middle-class FF parents here than living with a single parent or no parent there.


Neither you or I are expert in the area.

It would be nice to see the full paper. However, their website provides a link to what claims to be the full report but is actually just the title plus appendices. Nonetheless, some methodical defects are obvious even to a non-expert. 8 of 27 eldest female children and 2 of 10 eldest male children of gay parents reported bisexual or homosexual tendencies. Would you claim a sample this small as evidence that children of gays were more likely to be gay without even a control group? You don't need to be a psychologist to answer this question.

(FWIW I would not be surprised if children raised by gays were more likely to be gay or bisexual. Nor would I care. Children raised by Christians are probably more likely to be Christian, but you don't see Christian moralists complaining about that.)


So, we look at the Journal - is it a reputable peer reviewed journal? Yes. No doubt it has some bias - yes I had read the "comment" link. But it is part of the literature and you must accept it as part of the paradigm.

I think you place more faith in the institution of the sacred cow of peer review than actual studies into its efficacy merit. Peer review strains out most of the crap (and the odd bit of good stuff) and improves much of the rest, but just because something gets through peer review these days doesn't make it true. If there is a dispute about it within the field then an outsider can only really withold judgement on the claims in question until more evidence comes to hand - such as the studies cited in the other paper you quoted, which (if they are a fair summary) back up the Comment in question.


Correct - not "directly" caused by sexuality. However it is indirectly caused by sexuality and that is a good enough reason to reject FF/MM parentage for a adoptive baby.

Again you are ignoring the positive experiences cited, and also ignoring the possibility of a child coming from circumstances where its experiences if not adopted might be worse. As yet, no one has answered my question about whether or not the shortage of babies for adoption applies specifically to white babies. Once again, I am happy to let qualified professionals make the choice about the suitability of individual gay and lesbian parents - once the legislation is in place to let them.


You are on a hiding to nothing on this one. Cut your losses and run because you are being as irrationaly PC as CL is irrationally God-fearing.

Actually I'm quite comfortable with my position in this debate, whereas you seem to be the one who is on the run and getting a little bit desperate, so I assume this must be more of your useless bravado.

Cat
10-02-2004, 07:17 PM
[QUOTE]I would generally agree with this, ie the decisions should be made by qualified professionals, not by $$$. Would this really rule out gay adoptions entirely though, even if gay parenting was considered slightly sub-optimal, especially if there is not a big demand for adoptions from the "third world" relative to the number of babies available for adoption? (Again, I don't know if the latter is the case or not).

It wouldn't rule it out, but I guess it puts the issue of gay adoption in the same catorgory as the couple in their 60's seeking ivf, the right to adopt or seeking a surrogate. At the end of the day, their fitness to parent has to be questioned, but not entirely excluded.


Perhaps, but society needs to be consistent about that. "Society" should not be imposing that constraint in some cases and ignoring it in others - but clearly it does ignore it in others, eg we are happy to provide publicly funded medical support to individuals who do all kinds of stupid things to themselves.

In any case, what about if it is done through the private health system (is this allowed?)?

The operative word here is 'to themselves', with adoption, surrogacy it's the interests of the third & fourth party thats at issue. I think you have to approach this question from the rights of the child, their rights to be awarded the best adoptive parents possible.


The onus is also on every straight couple to demonstrate exactly the same thing then.

Yes, but straight couples have a head start, a natural (and I'm not using this term to be deliberately offensive) biological advantage.



Actually my partner suggested all the hobbits had the hots for each other, and now I can't help "noticing" it. Who knows what Peter Jackson had in mind in the way he translated Tolkien to screen?

Is your partner being adequately serviced?

Cat
10-02-2004, 07:26 PM
Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children how to even attempt to treat Aboriginal people as equals. Since it is not, racial integration in Australian schools is not currently tenable.

Look, be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children to view men and women as equal. Since it is not, allowing girls into male-dominated areas of the curriculum in Australia is not currently tenable.

Look be realistic. Society is not about to start teaching children to care about the environment. Since it is not, having schoolchildren working in landcare and learning about threatened species is not currently tenable ...


Hey, that's my technique you plagiarist!

Cat
10-02-2004, 07:28 PM
So is homosexuality a product of nature or nurture? There was a post up there which basically lamented the loss of [straight] male role models, hence my question.

AR

Both

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 09:35 PM
The operative word here is 'to themselves', with adoption, surrogacy it's the interests of the third & fourth party thats at issue. I think you have to approach this question from the rights of the child, their rights to be awarded the best adoptive parents possible.

That might be so when you were talking about a child who already exists, and will be adopted by someone, and making the decisions about who is going to adopt that child. However many of the cases we're discussing are quite different. If there is surrogacy stemming from an agreement (whether $$$ are involved or otherwise) then the child would not come into existence without the agreement. So the question could become: are this child's prospects so bad that it would be better for its sake if it was not born at all? And the answer on the kind of evidence we've discussed so far has been: obviously not.

Rincewind
10-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Both

Like most characteristics - but I think Amiel means "in what proportions?"

PHAT
10-02-2004, 10:35 PM
Like most characteristics - but I think Amiel means "in what proportions?"

Various proportions.

I hope this helps.

Rincewind
11-02-2004, 07:12 AM
Various proportions.

I hope this helps.

Are there statistical data on these various proportions?

Cat
11-02-2004, 09:52 AM
Are there statistical data on these various proportions?

It depends on the environment. Who knows what any man is capable of in his darkest hour?

paulb
11-02-2004, 12:08 PM
I haven't read much of the debate, so forgive me if this is off the mark, but a question:

How much of the opposition to gay adoption (here and elsewhere) is based on the ideas that:
gays are less worthy in some sense;
the gay adoption will encourage homosexuality generally, which is supposedly a bad thing;
I'm as "tolerant" as the grass is green but let's face it they're not as good as us?

Alternatively, if one explicitly assumes that gays are the full moral and political equivalents of straights - ie, that being gay is not a morally significant factor - how many of these anti-gay-adoption arguments go through?

As it stands, of course, a gay woman can get herself pregnant (lie back, grit your teeth and think of Johnny Howard) and happily bring it up together with her female partner. Is that a disaster?

ursogr8
11-02-2004, 12:22 PM
As it stands, of course, a gay woman can get herself pregnant (lie back, grit your teeth and think of Johnny Howard) and happily bring it up together with her female partner. Is that a disaster?

It is powerful the awful images that can be conjured up by some with just a few words. :eek:

Middle of the day, probably no chess kiddies logged on. :whistle:

Where is the moderator when you need one. ;)

PHAT
11-02-2004, 12:25 PM
I haven't read much of the debate, so forgive me if this is off the mark, but a question:

How much of the opposition to gay adoption (here and elsewhere) is based on the ideas that:
1. gays are less worthy in some sense;
2. the gay adoption will encourage homosexuality generally, which is supposedly a bad thing;
3. I'm as "tolerant" as the grass is green but let's face it they're not as good as us?

Alternatively, if one explicitly assumes that gays are the full moral and political equivalents of straights - ie, that being gay is not a morally significant factor - how many of these anti-gay-adoption arguments go through?

As it stands, of course, a gay woman can get herself pregnant (lie back, grit your teeth and think of Johnny Howard) and happily bring it up together with her female partner. Is that a disaster?

Here:

1. none
2. none
3. none

The core of arguement is whether or not a child "needs" or "ought to have" or "does not require" a parent of both sexes. Noone (here) is suggesting that a homosexual would necessarily be a lesser quality parent [i]because[i] of there homosexuality.

Cat
11-02-2004, 02:47 PM
That might be so when you were talking about a child who already exists, and will be adopted by someone, and making the decisions about who is going to adopt that child. However many of the cases we're discussing are quite different. If there is surrogacy stemming from an agreement (whether $$$ are involved or otherwise) then the child would not come into existence without the agreement. So the question could become: are this child's prospects so bad that it would be better for its sake if it was not born at all? And the answer on the kind of evidence we've discussed so far has been: obviously not.

You're starting to sound like a RC, you'll be telling me every sperm is sacred next!

A private agreement is their own affair, and as long as nobody gets hurt or infringes the law, then it up to them. If money is being exchanged, then it becomes a public matter. Society has a responsibility to ensure children are not treated as a commodity and parenting rights cannot be bought or sold. In these matters, money is the root of all evil.

Millions of children already exist in states of abject misery. Many children are being born immediately into misery. The last thing humanity can afford is to create more roads to misery, it needs to clean up its current mess first. As a social priority, the parenting desires of a couple of queens don't amount to a hill of beans in comparison to the scale of neglect endured by children already in existence.

In essence the question is should their purchasing power give them the right to enter parenthood? It's akin to saying should the 80 year old billionaire recieve a heart transplant while 16 000 kids starve to death every day. Its a question that can only be considered from a position of affluence, a middle class dilemma. Should limited resources be directed to satisfy every whim and fancy of the wealthy, or is there a social imperative demanding fair distribution.

Perhaps resources would be better directed into assisting the needs of existent parents struggling on the breadline. Maybe the Government spend some of its 8.3 billion surplus on alleviating the poverty already being experienced by thousands of children in poverty.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2004, 05:36 PM
As it stands, of course, a gay woman can get herself pregnant (lie back, grit your teeth and think of Johnny Howard) and happily bring it up together with her female partner. Is that a disaster?

One (normally) lesbian woman I vaguely know made unorthodox use of the Dial-A-Sailor service to get herself pregnant one time when the US Navy visited Hobart back in the early 90s. She was completely upfront about her motives to the sailor concerned. The irony and humour of it all was that the woman concerned is stridently anti-USA and very, very left-wing.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2004, 05:54 PM
You're starting to sound like a RC, you'll be telling me every sperm is sacred next!

I thought someone would try to twist that to a right-to-life argument. :p It's not though, in an abortion case there's a non-consenting mother. Very big difference.


A private agreement is their own affair, and as long as nobody gets hurt or infringes the law, then it up to them. If money is being exchanged, then it becomes a public matter. Society has a responsibility to ensure children are not treated as a commodity and parenting rights cannot be bought or sold. In these matters, money is the root of all evil.

I tend to prefer that money not be exchanged. But if a woman in desperate poverty really wanted to be a surrogate parent for money in full knowledge of what it would involve, I'm not sure who I am to deny her that.


Millions of children already exist in states of abject misery. Many children are being born immediately into misery. The last thing humanity can afford is to create more roads to misery, it needs to clean up its current mess first. As a social priority, the parenting desires of a couple of queens don't amount to a hill of beans in comparison to the scale of neglect endured by children already in existence.

But also the misery these children would suffer as children of well-off gay parents, if there was any misery at all (by no means a given according to the first link posted by Matt's) in inconsequential compared to the misery they will suffer if left in their present circumstances. Therefore, why not use gay adoption as a partial solution to the problem you're complaining about? Seems obvious to me. (NB I am not suggesting coercive adoption, just in cases where adoption is possible voluntarily).


In essence the question is should their purchasing power give them the right to enter parenthood?

No, it isn't. In the case of a child from an impoverished "third world" country, the purchasing power is relevant because it can buy the child a better life.


Should limited resources be directed to satisfy every whim and fancy of the wealthy, or is there a social imperative demanding fair distribution.

It is clear that both of these problems can be solved at once without much "redirection of resources." Gay parents adopt impoverished child, part of problem solved.


Perhaps resources would be better directed into assisting the needs of existent parents struggling on the breadline. Maybe the Government spend some of its 8.3 billion surplus on alleviating the poverty already being experienced by thousands of children in poverty.

I don't really see this as an either/or situation.

PHAT
11-02-2004, 08:11 PM
One (normally) lesbian woman I vaguely know made unorthodox use of the Dial-A-Sailor service to get herself pregnant one time when the US Navy visited Hobart back in the early 90s. She was completely upfront about her motives to the sailor concerned. The irony and humour of it all was that the woman concerned is stridently anti-USA and very, very left-wing.

Sperm is cheap. Eggs are dear. She is a slut.

PHAT
11-02-2004, 08:22 PM
I tend to prefer that money not be exchanged. But if a woman in desperate poverty really wanted to be a surrogate parent for money in full knowledge of what it would involve, I'm not sure who I am to deny her that.


Deny her with a histerectomy.



It is clear that both of these problems can be solved at once without much "redirection of resources." Gay parents adopt impoverished child, part of problem solved.


Oh yeah, suuuure Bonham. Can you imagine what would happen in a country were the adoption babies were being whisked off tothe houses of fat white queers?

http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article____5334.asp

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 12:17 AM
Oh yeah, suuuure Bonham. Can you imagine what would happen in a country were the adoption babies were being whisked off tothe houses of fat white queers?

http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article____5334.asp

Very interesting article, and there is a bit at the bottom which mirrored my feelings about precisely that situation:

The Government does not view the fact that no foreign country is currently prepared to accept gay couples as adoptive parents as an insurmountable hurdle. Attitudes change over time, it says, and new countries with different approaches may become available in the future.

Actually I think this is likely eventually, whatever the resistance initially. Can't children from these countries already be adopted by parents of different religion, including atheists? Yet I doubt too much fuss is raised at home about that. If over time fears about gay parenting become more and more groundless in the West (both in terms of more evidence and a more accepting society - both of which may reinforce each other) then the practical advantages will eventually outweigh the reservations.

How confident are you this isn't going to happen, over, say, 50 years?

Cat
13-02-2004, 07:36 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]I thought someone would try to twist that to a right-to-life argument. :p It's not though, in an abortion case there's a non-consenting mother. Very big difference.

I think you're skating on very thin ice, these words may yet come back to haunt you!


I tend to prefer that money not be exchanged. But if a woman in desperate poverty really wanted to be a surrogate parent for money in full knowledge of what it would involve, I'm not sure who I am to deny her that.


But also the misery these children would suffer as children of well-off gay parents, if there was any misery at all (by no means a given according to the first link posted by Matt's) in inconsequential compared to the misery they will suffer if left in their present circumstances. Therefore, why not use gay adoption as a partial solution to the problem you're complaining about? Seems obvious to me. (NB I am not suggesting coercive adoption, just in cases where adoption is possible voluntarily).

Ok, this is really an issue of surrogacy, its really not about gay or hetero-sexual parenting. It comes down to what society believes is saleable; your virginity, your soul, your mother, your baby. And once you sell your baby, you presumably sell your rights to expect that baby to be treated in the way you would want. Could your baby then rightly (or wrongly) be used by the purchaser as a toy, a pet, a sexual object, a slave or maybe even as organ parts. The history of Traded Humanity is the saddest of all. It would be one hell of a price to pay for gay parental gratification.




No, it isn't. In the case of a child from an impoverished "third world" country, the purchasing power is relevant because it can buy the child a better life.

The purchasing power is relevant because it can buy the child's life, for better or worse.

Mary Shelley would turn in her grave if she could see what you were suggesting. Isn't that the message from 'Frankenstein', that natural biology as an evolutionary process has created the optimal conditions for human reproduction, and human attempts to usurp that role will inevitably lead to disaster through ignorance and simplistic rationalisation? Even the oral contraceptive (which prevents not creates life) may yet prove to have a tragic twist!

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2004, 08:08 PM
I think you're skating on very thin ice, these words may yet come back to haunt you!

In what way?


Ok, this is really an issue of surrogacy, its really not about gay or hetero-sexual parenting. It comes down to what society believes is saleable; your virginity, your soul, your mother, your baby.

I believe people should definitely be allowed to sell the first, though it beats me that so many people want to buy it. The second raises Trade Practices issues because the advertised product can't be proven to exist, the third at least requires the mother's consent (furthermore there are laws against even consensual slavery), and the fourth ... I do think it's simplistic to equate the selling of a baby generally with a specific contractual arrangement in which the baby will always be under the care of parents A and B but is being produced by biological mother C.


And once you sell your baby, you presumably sell your rights to expect that baby to be treated in the way you would want. Could your baby then rightly (or wrongly) be used by the purchaser as a toy, a pet, a sexual object, a slave or maybe even as organ parts. The history of Traded Humanity is the saddest of all. It would be one hell of a price to pay for gay parental gratification.

Firstly as explained above, the baby is only ever the surrogate parent's baby biologically, it's not hers as custody (at least, not if the laws are set up properly). And several of the "uses" are illegal anyway, so even if you argue that "property" is transferred (which interpretation I've got reservations about) then there are still clear obligations on the parents receiving it.

I'm not in favour of baby selling in general. Most people who want one should just go and have their own, if they can find anyone interested. Some people can't do that, either for medical reasons or sexuality reasons.


Mary Shelley would turn in her grave if she could see what you were suggesting. Isn't that the message from 'Frankenstein', that natural biology as an evolutionary process has created the optimal conditions for human reproduction, and human attempts to usurp that role will inevitably lead to disaster through ignorance and simplistic rationalisation?

Actually the true message of "Frankenstein" is the subject of a fair amount of debate. It can be interpreted in something like the way you suggest (and when so, is often interpreted as a feminist text). However it is far from clear whether it is a warning against artificial improvement on "nature" as such, or simply against sloppy or craven attempts at it.

In any case it is a novel partly about science written when science was in its infancy compared to today. And finally, what someone says in a novel does not prove or disprove anything.


Even the oral contraceptive (which prevents not creates life) may yet prove to have a tragic twist!

Motor car accidents kill thousands of Australians every year. Should we ban motor cars?

Cat
15-02-2004, 01:39 AM
In what way?

You've crossed the Rubicon. Once you've considered the value of life to the unborn, considered this to be of any signficance, then you are potentially creating moral arguments against abortion. You may say the surrogate has free choice, the mother wishing termination should have free choice also, but the situation is much more complex and you're in with the slippermen.


[QUOTE]I believe people should definitely be allowed to sell the first, though it beats me that so many people want to buy it. The second raises Trade Practices issues because the advertised product can't be proven to exist, the third at least requires the mother's consent (furthermore there are laws against even consensual slavery), and the fourth ... I do think it's simplistic to equate the selling of a baby generally with a specific contractual arrangement in which the baby will always be under the care of parents A and B but is being produced by biological mother C.
Firstly as explained above, the baby is only ever the surrogate parent's baby biologically, it's not hers as custody (at least, not if the laws are set up properly). And several of the "uses" are illegal anyway, so even if you argue that "property" is transferred (which interpretation I've got reservations about) then there are still clear obligations on the parents receiving it.

The situation is more complex and in some parts of the world, where surrogates have change their mind, the courts have upheld her right to do so.
Its common practice in India, for example, for individuals to sell a kidney to be able to provide economic support for their family. Essentially, if surrogacy were permitted to proceed without control, many impoverished parents could ssell their children (perhaps unwittingly) into slavery, for example, as has happened usually through history, when humans have been bought and sold. Its simply too difficult to police!





Motor car accidents kill thousands of Australians every year. Should we ban motor cars?

You said it!

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 02:18 AM
You've crossed the Rubicon. Once you've considered the value of life to the unborn, considered this to be of any signficance, then you are potentially creating moral arguments against abortion. You may say the surrogate has free choice, the mother wishing termination should have free choice also, but the situation is much more complex and you're in with the slippermen.

Nonsense. My views on this are:

(i) There is no valid reason for forcing a woman to carry an unborn child to term against her will. The potential future interests of the unborn child are irrelevant to this.
(ii) Only if the mother is willing to carry the child to term might it become relevant to consider whether it is in the interests of that child to be born.

There is no slippery slope because (ii) is only considered after (i) has been dealt with.

In any case I was only discussing (ii) before to show that if you're considering the future child's wellbeing as an argument, even if you can prove that its wellbeing may or will be suboptimal (in some sense or overall), that doesn't mean its life won't be worth living. It's not me who's trying to make the third decimal point of the potential child's wellbeing an argument for coercive contraception here.

Indeed, if you're going to illiberally deny gay people the right to have children through surrogacy on the grounds of the welfare of the potential child, then why not sterilise everyone who's poor, has an IQ below a certain level or lives in a dangerous suburb while you're at it?


The situation is more complex and in some parts of the world, where surrogates have change their mind, the courts have upheld her right to do so.

Do you mean they've changed their mind about carrying to term, or they've changed their mind about handing over the baby?

I'm actually not too concerned what laws about the surrogate changing their mind are, just so long as they are clear and those wishing to use this method can make their decisions knowing the legal risks.


Essentially, if surrogacy were permitted to proceed without control, many impoverished parents could ssell their children (perhaps unwittingly) into slavery, for example, as has happened usually through history, when humans have been bought and sold. Its simply too difficult to police!

Um, can't selling children into slavery happen anyway, surrogacy or no surrogacy? Why the difference?


You said it!

For those of us with an ounce of appreciation of the advantages of the modern world, my point about cars was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum actually. But anyway, I'll try another one:

Two chess players have been slightly injured while playing at my club in the last ten years. Ban chess?

Rincewind
15-02-2004, 06:34 AM
Two chess players have been slightly injured while playing at my club in the last ten years. Ban chess?

Many a true word spoken in jest.

I think you may have just hit on how to improve the popularity of chess in Australia. All this time we have been thinking the idea was to get it recognise as a sport. How misguided could we have been?

What we should be doing is lobbying the government to ban it. Force chess players underground, and it will no doubt improve its appeal to the youth sector (especially students) many times over.

Write a letter to your MP today. ;)

Cat
15-02-2004, 08:06 AM
There is no slippery slope because (ii) is only considered after (i) has been dealt with.

In any case I was only discussing (ii) before to show that if you're considering the future child's wellbeing as an argument, even if you can prove that its wellbeing may or will be suboptimal (in some sense or overall), that doesn't mean its life won't be worth living. It's not me who's trying to make the third decimal point of the potential child's wellbeing an argument for coercive contraception here.

I won't argue with you on this, but you are opening yourself up to a moral minefield if you try to maintain this stance.


Indeed, if you're going to illiberally deny gay people the right to have children through surrogacy on the grounds of the welfare of the potential child, then why not sterilise everyone who's poor, has an IQ below a certain level or lives in a dangerous suburb while you're at it?

As I say I am not distinguishing between Gay and heterosexual couples, but pointing out the dangers of surrogacy, especially when it crosses international borders.


Do you mean they've changed their mind about carrying to term, or they've changed their mind about handing over the baby?

The latter.


I'm actually not too concerned what laws about the surrogate changing their mind are, just so long as they are clear and those wishing to use this method can make their decisions knowing the legal risks.

Surely the laws make all the difference in the world? They are there (hopefully in this instance at least) to protect the weak and vulnerable againt naked commercial exploitation.



Um, can't selling children into slavery happen anyway, surrogacy or no surrogacy? Why the difference?

Yes slavery is rising world-wide. The Guardian advertises regularly for the post of 'slavery officer' in the UK. There are many roads to slavery, surrogacy potentially being one of them. For many of us, concern about the international slavery industry is a higher priority than opening dangerous roads to provide Western gay couple the right to adopt.



For those of us with an ounce of appreciation of the advantages of the modern world, my point about cars was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum actually. But anyway, I'll try another one:

Two chess players have been slightly injured while playing at my club in the last ten years. Ban chess?

I'm not suggesting homosexual couples should be banned from parenting. I'm pointing out there are few natural avenues through which this can come about, and I'm surprised this surprises you. Nature doesn't permit it, adoption services are beleagured and young heterosexual couples are rightly gven priority, and few would accept that international surrogacy is anything other than a pandora's box, as was suggested in Matt's link. Private arrangement is the obvious solution.

Finally, why should society pay (commercially, logistically, etc) for what is an exercise in social engineering? You seem to be comfortable with the idea that 'user pays' when it comes to the cost of parenting, why expect society to be so charitable in their approach to this issue.

PHAT
15-02-2004, 02:02 PM
I have just read:

There are ~60,000 MM parents in USA.
The one fulltime income + one domestic duty type family is represented in this group. However, at 26% it is twice the rate of MF parents. Furthermore, the FF parents follow this model at 22%.

These stats show at the very least, that there is a difference in style between FF/MM and MF parents. Perhaps this homos to be better parents than heteros :eek: . However, let's be completely clear, there are differences. I wonder; if the MM/FF parents are of the higher socio-economic group that can afford the FI+DD model, then the outcomes for their children, may also be scewed toward a "better" outcome. If this were true, and the mean outcome from MM/FF families is no different than MF families, It would suggest that the mean MM/FF parents are not as good as the mean MF.

Of course the propositions I have put are predicated on many "ifs", and may be all bollocks. But what I have put is still a tenable theory until other data shows otherwise.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 08:17 PM
I won't argue with you on this, but you are opening yourself up to a moral minefield if you try to maintain this stance.

I love it when someone says they won't argue and then does. :lol: Let's just say that having a degree in philosophy means that I have a fairly good idea where the mines are buried and how to avoid them.


As I say I am not distinguishing between Gay and heterosexual couples, but pointing out the dangers of surrogacy, especially when it crosses international borders.

And the dangers of surrogacy in the cases you're talking about are to .... so why not ban any other form of parenting that endangers children too?


Surely the laws make all the difference in the world? They are there (hopefully in this instance at least) to protect the weak and vulnerable againt naked commercial exploitation.

And that's fair enough. If there's going to be surrogacy I'm happy for safeguards to exist.


Yes slavery is rising world-wide. The Guardian advertises regularly for the post of 'slavery officer' in the UK. There are many roads to slavery, surrogacy potentially being one of them. For many of us, concern about the international slavery industry is a higher priority than opening dangerous roads to provide Western gay couple the right to adopt.

Just did a brief read-up on the issue (actually the scale of it is higher than I had any idea of). Can't say I saw too many mentions of Western surrogacy as an issue, in fact I didn't see any. Apart from the example you mentioned before (the killing-for-organs case) have you got any other cases of this?


I'm not suggesting homosexual couples should be banned from parenting. I'm pointing out there are few natural avenues through which this can come about, and I'm surprised this surprises you.

No, I fully realise this, I'm just saying that that's no reason to attempt to keep those avenues that do exist illegal.


Private arrangement is the obvious solution.

Exactly.


Finally, why should society pay (commercially, logistically, etc) for what is an exercise in social engineering? You seem to be comfortable with the idea that 'user pays' when it comes to the cost of parenting, why expect society to be so charitable in their approach to this issue.

Where did I say that I expected "society" to pay for anything? All I recall saying was that I expected society to get its laws (which are the real exercise in social engineering) out of the way.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2004, 09:18 PM
There are ~60,000 MM parents in USA.
The one fulltime income + one domestic duty type family is represented in this group. However, at 26% it is twice the rate of MF parents. Furthermore, the FF parents follow this model at 22%.

Interesting. I didn't know that.


I wonder; if the MM/FF parents are of the higher socio-economic group that can afford the FI+DD model, then the outcomes for their children, may also be scewed toward a "better" outcome. If this were true, and the mean outcome from MM/FF families is no different than MF families, It would suggest that the mean MM/FF parents are not as good as the mean MF.

Again you're using the concept of a "good parent" in a way that reads like an obscuring of the difference between good parenting and a good outcome - a point I mentioned before. Outcome is also influenced by societal factors irrelevant to how well the parent attempted to play their role.

Also, what have we seen by way of studies on the positive outcomes of MM/FF parenting and how this compares with the positive outcomes of parenting by MF couples of the same socio-economic status? I doubt there'd be much research, because so much seems to have been focussed on the arguments about the negatives. But maybe there's something out there.


Of course the propositions I have put are predicated on many "ifs", and may be all bollocks. But what I have put is still a tenable theory until other data shows otherwise.

Any theory can be "tenable" until disproven, but it doesn't mean anyone has to or should believe it.

Cat
15-02-2004, 10:58 PM
I love it when someone says they won't argue and then does. :lol: Let's just say that having a degree in philosophy means that I have a fairly good idea where the mines are buried and how to avoid them.

OK, next time we have an abortion debate I'll bat for the other side!



And the dangers of surrogacy in the cases you're talking about are to .... so why not ban any other form of parenting that endangers children too?

It should certainly be discouraged - I don't expect any 'ban' is likely to be effective world wide. I'd like to put a word in for parents too -its a bloody difficult, thankless task being a parent. I would hate to see excessive regulation brought in, it would be a disaster for families.




Just did a brief read-up on the issue (actually the scale of it is higher than I had any idea of). Can't say I saw too many mentions of Western surrogacy as an issue, in fact I didn't see any. Apart from the example you mentioned before (the killing-for-organs case) have you got any other cases of this?

I remember after the fall of Chichesque (I've got no idea how to spell his name) and the discovery of the staarving Romanian orphans. Initially Britain led the vanguard in helping relief, and there was a great deal of publicity an public back-slapping. After some time it emerged many of the orphans that came to Britain were being abused or exploited. Since then there has been a growing stream of children entering Britain ( and presumably Europe) from Eastern Europe and West Africa. Presumably with the fall of the Iron curtain organised Russian crime syndicates have seen it as an opportunity. It's about the best thing that can be said for the Royal Family & the British aristocracy, they do a great deal keep the worse excesses of organised crime and the Mafia out of the UK.

arosar
16-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Hello boys!! Just a small itsy-bitsy favour to ask please. Could you ensure that when you quote, that you actually include the name of the person you're quoting in the code?

Cheers boys.

AR

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2004, 07:21 PM
OK, next time we have an abortion debate I'll bat for the other side!

Which other side, bat for whatever side you want, I don't care.


I remember after the fall of Chichesque (I've got no idea how to spell his name)

Ceaucescu


and the discovery of the staarving Romanian orphans.

This is not surrogacy.


Since then there has been a growing stream of children entering Britain ( and presumably Europe) from Eastern Europe and West Africa.

This is not necessarily surrogacy either.

Cat
16-02-2004, 11:18 PM
This is not surrogacy.
This is not necessarily surrogacy either.

No, its children being adopted into slavery, which was what it seemed you were asking about. As far as surrogacy is concerned, the issues have been fairly exhaustively examined amongst medical ethics committees, I'll try and find a reference.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2004, 12:15 AM
No, its children being adopted into slavery, which was what it seemed you were asking about. As far as surrogacy is concerned, the issues have been fairly exhaustively examined amongst medical ethics committees, I'll try and find a reference.

What I'd like is this: many Western countries already have surrogacy involving heterosexual families, so is there a documented (not merely hypothesised) link between this and child, or any other, slavery?

Incidentally adult slavery is still far from beaten as an issue, I was surprised at some of the evidence on the global scale of adult slavery I stumbled across while looking around.

chesslover
25-02-2004, 11:08 PM
Here you go Matt - President Bush also supports your view on a ban on gay marriage. The Republicans are going to bring in a constitutional amendmendt that will ban gays from ever being married in the USA

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

Also Governor Arnie the Terminator, has also instructed the state of California to go to the courts to stop San Franciso from defying the state and issuing marriage licence to the homosexuals there

arosar
02-03-2004, 09:43 AM
Did any of youse blokes see the Oscars last night? How's about that fella who thanked his "beautiful boyfriend" - did you get a bit of that "Ooohhh...yuck!" feeling sorta?

AR

PHAT
02-03-2004, 03:21 PM
Did any of youse blokes see the Oscars last night? How's about that fella who thanked his "beautiful boyfriend" - did you get a bit of that "Ooohhh...yuck!" feeling sorta?

AR

I didn't see it (no TV) , but just the thought is :sick:

arosar
02-03-2004, 03:27 PM
I didn't see it (no TV) , but just the thought is :sick:

And he was Aussie too mate. We so need to revive our macho role models.

AR

PHAT
02-03-2004, 03:35 PM
And he was Aussie too mate. We so need to revive our macho role models.

AR

It isn't his queerness that is the problem, it is his involvment in an industry that produces 95% unentertainment.

Basil
30-12-2006, 04:33 AM
http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/naked1.wav


... Almost anybody who cares to remember will tell you that the quotes: "Do you like gladiator movies" and "Do you like Turkish prisons" are quotes from "Flying High" by Leslie Nelson.


Your being paranoid, go hire the movie and have a laugh, relax!!

So you appreciated the gay references in Flying High? Certainly I applaud you for realising they form part of society's rich ability to laugh across a broad range of issues, but three years later, to suggest as you have, that for the same thing, I am a gay-basher makes you an

utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter

hypocrite.

Don't even think about using the word 'hypocrite' ever again

antichrist
30-12-2006, 10:45 AM
http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/naked1.wav





So you appreciated the gay references in Flying High? Certainly I applaud you for realising they form part of society's rich ability to laugh across a broad range of issues, but three years later, to suggest as you have, that for the same thing, I am a gay-basher makes you an

utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter

hypocrite.

Don't even think about using the word 'hypocrite' ever again

Howard, this post shows just how similar we are. I provided a similar one showing how if Noah or some lived to 945 years old they would have that about 45 many generations of grandchildren, great grandchildren etc etc. And that cruel Shirty reakons that post showed the mesishimao or something of my brain - I always admired that word but could not locate it again. I will refer him to this post so he can drag it out out for me.

eclectic
30-12-2006, 10:56 AM
http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/naked1.wav





So you appreciated the gay references in Flying High? Certainly I applaud you for realising they form part of society's rich ability to laugh across a broad range of issues, but three years later, to suggest as you have, that for the same thing, I am a gay-basher makes you an

utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter

hypocrite.

Don't even think about using the word 'hypocrite' ever again

Thank goodness you didn't repeatedly type "nutter" ; we have enough of them here already! :rolleyes:

antichrist
30-12-2006, 11:01 AM
Don't dare utter nutter butter gutter putter cutter, utter nutter butter putter gutter cutter, utter butter gputter utter nutter cutter butterutter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter,utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter butter cutter, utter nutter cutter utter nutter cutter, utter nutter gutter cutter, utter nutter cutter,utter nutter putter cutter, utter butter nutter butter putter cutter, utter nutter butter gutter putter cutter,

eclectic
30-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Don't dare utter nutter butter gutter putter cutter, utter nutter butter putter gutter cutter, utter butter gputter utter nutter cutter butterutter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter,utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter cutter, utter nutter butter cutter, utter nutter cutter utter nutter cutter, utter nutter gutter cutter, utter nutter cutter,utter nutter putter cutter, utter butter nutter butter putter cutter, utter nutter butter gutter putter cutter,

It didn't take long for one of them to take the bait, did it?

antichrist
30-12-2006, 11:14 AM
Good one Skaro

firegoat7
30-12-2006, 11:21 AM
So you appreciated the gay references in Flying High?
Yep.




Certainly I applaud you for realising they form part of society's rich ability to laugh across a broad range of issues,

Like I said before I could not give a toss about what a fool like yourself thinks.



but three years later, to suggest as you have, that for the same thing, I am a gay-basher makes you an

Well c'mon, provide some evidence. Try and make it stick. Where on earth did I say that you were a gay basher, ya goddamn freak! Got something you want to tell us all Howie?:hand:

cheers Fg7

Basil
30-12-2006, 05:20 PM
Like I said before I could not give a toss about what a fool like yourself thinks.
Irrelevant. It wasn't posted for your benefit. It was posted for the record. Speaking of which, play another one - yours is boring.


Well c'mon, provide some evidence. Try and make it stick. Where on earth did I say that you were a gay basher, ya goddamn freak

http://www.chesschat.org/vbshout.php?do=archive&page=136
6:28pm 24/12/2006

This URL was correct at time of posting. Future shoutbox posts will make the link incorrect. To view the post refer the Shoutbox history at the time specified : 6:28pm 24/12/2006.
Or you can just take my word for it. Or just read the quote;viz

when are you mods going to chastise Duggan over his gay bashing?

You, your credibility, your memory, your self-assessed rep is in shreds. Permanently.

As I said - utter hypocrite.

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2006, 05:39 PM
*laughs*

Nice work Howard.

goatboy's totally busted here. In fact, he's worse than merely inconsistent, since his use of much the same repertoire was to insinuate, in a derogatory fashion, that another poster was gay - Howard has not used it in this manner.

Basil
30-12-2006, 05:43 PM
goatboy's totally busted here.
Correction: Goatbot[y] is totally busted here for the umpteenth time. He was being busted long before I got here.

Alan Shore
30-12-2006, 05:45 PM
We're all gay.

Basil
30-12-2006, 05:50 PM
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But we're not all

utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter

(busted ;) ) hypocrites.

Keep walking Beaumont :hand:

firegoat7
30-12-2006, 06:01 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/vbshout.php?do=archive&page=136
6:28pm 24/12/2006

This URL was correct at time of posting. Future shoutbox posts will make the link incorrect. To view the post refer the Shoutbox history at the time specified : 6:28pm 24/12/2006.



Here is how it is done bots....

I am sorry Howard. I was completely mistaken. You have my sincerest apologies. You are not a "gay basher" .

cheers fg7

ElevatorEscapee
30-12-2006, 06:37 PM
What I find of interest is the terminology and uniquity of the English language here:

A "bible basher" is one who loves the bible (and telling people about it)... however a "gay basher" is most certainly someone who does not love gay people.

Basil
30-12-2006, 07:04 PM
I am sorry Howard. I was completely mistaken. You have my sincerest apologies. You are not a "gay basher" .

cheers fg7

Accepted.

Basil
30-12-2006, 07:16 PM
Bet you didn't expect that one to come back from the annals [spell check] and bite you on the bum! ;)

NTTAWWT

antichrist
30-12-2006, 08:13 PM
Bet you didn't expect that one to come back from the annals [spell check] and bite you on the bum! ;)

NTTAWWT

what the heck is NTTAWWT?

Howard, I would have FG's apolgy, enlarged, coloured then framed and use as avatar

And are you the only member of said Tromp fan club, and are you winning of those Tromp games - you are the one and only specialist so should have down to a fine art by now.

Basil
30-12-2006, 08:50 PM
what the heck is NTTAWWT?
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4533


Howard, I would have FG's apolgy, enlarged, coloured then framed and use as avatar
;)


And are you the only member of said Tromp fan club
Ian Rogers is an honourary member [I'm not sure he knows - once you're a GM, these things get bestowed in absentia]. Other applications considered.


and are you winning of those Tromp games
Of course! we haven't reached the middle games yet !!
Except against EE (we've reached the middle game :()


you are the one and only specialist so should have down to a fine art by now.
Ha! And I'd be very careful aboout the use of the word specialist - the evidence doesn't support the facts. I have a feeling in my bones that I couyld spark a wave interest :eek: well a small one.

antichrist
06-01-2007, 08:44 PM
We're all gay.

"I never thought I would see the day when the Qld Nationals, some of whom are not straight, would cling to power gaily riding on the back of homosexuals."

When, where, why and by whom was this published??