On parents right to raise their children according to their own beliefs

[Rithrandil]

I don't know what your view is on it either, but you made a damn good argument for pro-life. Thats why I asked the question. It wasn't an accusation or attack at all. Just a question.

Ah. Well, I think the argument fails on a legal level, at least in the United States, since legally a fetus/unborn child/whatever is not a person. Whether that's a good thing or not is an entirely different discussion most of us aren't really comfortable getting in to.

I repeatedly said that I didn't want to have to explain those subjects until she was old enough to understand adult subject matter like that. Which is EXACTLY what you just said. I did not say I was against gays doing anything normal in public. What I am against is the extreme erotic parade behavior that some gays feel the need to go to in order to get in your face. Those are the types of things I don't want being thrust upon my daughter until she is of sufficient age to understand.

You said you didn't want to explain homosexuality. Do you not want to explain heterosexuality as well? So for the record, you don't have any moral views on homosexuality being bad/whatever, and if two guys/girls want to hold hands in a park or kiss, you'd view it the same way as a heterosexual couple doing so?

My argument is a kid can get "two people who love each other can get married" pretty easily, but arguments about the creation of the universe, existence/non-existence of a personal god, etc are way too complicated to expect a child to understand before they've developed their critical thinking skills. So I personally won't talk to the child about my religious beliefs or lack there of. When the child is old enough to understand I'll explain what I think and they can decide for themselves. I'm not opposed to the child learning about this stuff on their own as long as it's not forced down their throat.

Your also twisting what I said about things such as getting married. I told you that I was ok with gays getting married and have all the rights that go with it as long as we could seperate any issues that will take away rights of organizations such as churches so they are not prosecuted for practicing their beliefs.

If Catholic churches can feel free not to peform ceremonies between a Catholic and non-Catholic I'm pretty sure there would be protections for Churches who didn't want to marry homosexuals.

Then again, I'd argue that such actions should deprive them of their tax exempt status (not that they should have such status anyways)

And how exactly am I taking away someone else's civil rights by not teaching my too young to understand daughter about homosexuality?

Well, you also argued to outlaw homosexual adoption and that local governments could outlaw gay marriage and it'd be okay. That's oppressing their civil rights. It also seemed like you were arguing everyone else should keep it totally concealed as well. If that's not the case, then my apologies.

My view is no different about homosexuality and my daughter.

I believe you. I think most parents (other then the crazy Phelps "god hates fags" variety) would feel the same way

So yes you did make my argument, almost to the T. You nailed it so close that you could have used your buddy's little substitution test.

A test I still don't agree with, for that matter.

 

[Rithrandil]

I personally think that homosexuals should be able to do as they wish. But on a personal level even if i was a homosexual, i still wouldnt engage in homosexual relations because i believe in raising a family naturally. I am opposed to all sex being seen as the same thing as love. I also dont believe in romantic love, imo that is just lust.

My father and mother havent had sex since my brothers birth because my mom was uncomfortable with it. Yet when the time came she still gave a kidney to dad when both of his kidneys failed.

You don't believe in romantic love? So the love you would feel for your best friend is the exact same as the love you would feel your a future wife? Or the love you may have of video games? Or the love you have for your god?

There are multiple types of love - romantic love is one of them. You just happened to apparently grow up in the second most sexually repressed society known to man (the Catholic Church being the first). Repressing sexual urges isn't a good thing. Look at how screwed up a lot of Catholic Priests turn up. There's some giant scandal going on in Ireland regarding child abuse by religious orders right now.

And, by the way, if you don't believe in romantic love, then why did your mother and father get married? Are you saying your dad could have just as easily have fallen in love with your mailman and your mom could have fallen in love with a waitress?

 

[JemyM]

Suppressing your childs sexuality and genital mutilation have a lot in common. They are based on "I was taught this was good, even if I suffered from it, and now my kids should end up the same". It doesn't matter if it's immoral, insane and injust, it's a "I had it bad, and now others should have it bad" mentality. It's commonly men who advocate male circumcision, and it's commonly women who advocate female circumcision. It's also commonly women who lash out against other womens sexuality, calling them whores, sluts or prostitutes. It's also homosexual or bisexual males who lash out the hardest against homosexuals because they were taught homosexuality is wrong and they cannot handle that they are one themselves.

All those suppressed emotions, all the pain, are channeled against those who aren't locked in the psychological strangehold they themselves are held in.

There's a place in Ireland where it's common that the elder males go to other cities to work, even the older boy in the family do so. That means that the younger males end up in a society where females are much more common than males. This place happen to be catholic and sexuality is sharply suppressed.
Interestingly, that society have a much greater percentage of schizophrenia amongst young men than anywhere else.

Suppression of sexuality is not healthy and it causes derangements.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

You don't believe in romantic love? So the love you would feel for your best friend is the exact same as the love you would feel your a future wife? Or the love you may have of video games? Or the love you have for your god?

Yes.

There are multiple types of love - romantic love is one of them. You just happened to apparently grow up in the second most sexually repressed society known to man (the Catholic Church being the first). Repressing sexual urges isn't a good thing. Look at how screwed up a lot of Catholic Priests turn up. There's some giant scandal going on in Ireland regarding child abuse by religious orders right now.

This is a fair point, but some people can.

And, by the way, if you don't believe in romantic love, then why did your mother and father get married? Are you saying your dad could have just as easily have fallen in love with your mailman and your mom could have fallen in love with a waitress?

Its was an arranged marriage. To raise a family.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

You are making a strawman. Advocating sex as something positive and healthy isn't the same as saying life is all about sex, just like saying that a well cooked dinner is a good thing, isn't the same as advocating eating good food all the time.

I am not saying sex is a bad thing. I am saying it isnt necessary to live a good life.

 

[JemyM]

This is a fair point, but some people can.

Some people can eat a lot without gaining weight. That doesn't mean that they should and it doesn't change the fact that by average a healthy and educated relationship with food is better than saying to the individual to never eat food that taste well.

 

[JemyM]

I am not saying sex is a bad thing. I am saying it isnt necessary to live a good life.

Which is still a meaningless statement because it's suggest that sex should be avoided as it's not necessary. Sex enhance life just as a good meal or the pleasure of succeeding with your goals. Giving it up is always a loss and never a gain. Trying to avoid having it clearly leads to harmful consequences, where as you can have an almost unlimited amount of sex without harm as long as you do so with control and awareness.

 

[Rithrandil]

Yes.

...Okay, well, I don't know how to respond to that, other then to say that probably shows severely stunted emotional growth. I'm sure Jemy can point out why far better than I can. There are different types of love. Would you be willing to marry your mother? Or your father? Sex is a normal and healthy part of a loving, romantic relationship. Sex isn't the romantic relationship itself, but it's a part of it.

Its was an arranged marriage. To raise a family.

So they didn't marry for love? I'm curious why your society would allow arranged marriages and not gay marriages, then.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Which is still a meaningless statement because it's suggest that sex should be avoided as it's not necessary. Sex enhance life just as a good meal or the pleasure of succeeding with your goals. Giving it up is always a loss and never a gain. Trying to avoid having it clearly leads to harmful consequences, where as you can have an almost unlimited amount of sex without harm as long as you do so with control and awareness.

You are trying very hard to make it seem like i am saying something i am not saying. I never said it should be avoided. Yes it can enhance life, but it isnt the only way to do so. I disagree that it leads to harmful consequences especially if it isnt out of hatred. And learning to control yourself is always a good thing imo.

EDIT: Also i believe one of the reasons why the US is 50 times more likely to get divorced than my country is because of the amount of sex partners one has in western society. People who only had the one partner is probably going to have less sexual issues with their partner and hence wont be the cause of divorce.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

So they didn't marry for love? I'm curious why your society would allow arranged marriages and not gay marriages, then.

It is a culture i suppose. they say it is because of the muslims on some sites. @_@ Always the muslims fault. @_@

 

[Benedict]

EDIT: Also i believe one of the reasons why the US is 50 times more likely to get divorced than my country is because of the amount of sex partners one has in western society. People who only had the one partner is probably going to have less sexual issues with their partner and hence wont be the cause of divorce.

Doesn't that suggest that the flipside is that people in the US are more likely to actually have sexually satisfying relationships? Even if not permanent ones.

 

[Rithrandil]

EDIT: Also i believe one of the reasons why the US is 50 times more likely to get divorced than my country is because of the amount of sex partners one has in western society. People who only had the one partner is probably going to have less sexual issues with their partner and hence wont be the cause of divorce.

I'd disagree with you entirely. I doubt 'sexual issues' are the causes of most divorces.

 

[Pladio]

So they didn't marry for love? I'm curious why your society would allow arranged marriages and not gay marriages, then.

Reproduction, I guess.

 

[JemyM]

You are trying very hard to make it seem like i am saying something i am not saying. I never said it should be avoided. Yes it can enhance life, but it isnt the only way to do so. I disagree that it leads to harmful consequences especially if it isnt out of hatred. And learning to control yourself is always a good thing imo.

Having sex is a sacrifice nothing deal. You can have sex to enhance your life and you can still benefit from other ways to improve life ON TOP OF THAT. It's a win-win scenario. It's only when you refrain from having sex that you give something up and make life less valuable for no good reason.

EDIT: Also i believe one of the reasons why the US is 50 times more likely to get divorced than my country is because of the amount of sex partners one has in western society. People who only had the one partner is probably going to have less sexual issues with their partner and hence wont be the cause of divorce.

The opposite.

The body can play tricks upon you. The first months a love can be blinding, but it's only with time that a relationship suceeds or falls.

If people marry for the sake of marriage, marry to early, or marry to have sex, they will divorce more often. For this reason people in Sweden do not get married until they have been with each other for several years, making really sure that the relationship is stable before moving on.

Marrying early is seen as a sign of irresponsibility and others will assume that the marriage isn't serious and that it will fail.

Having had multiple partners prior to marriage gives a greater chance of finding the right one. And yeah, problems with sex is a great reason for people to get divorced. And women can still get HPV and die from their partner regardless if they are marry before sex or not. It's also possible to be allergic to your partners semen.

The United States have a culture that makes marriage more important than it is, leading to people marry each other when they shouldn't. Thus you get more divorce.

Not that divorce is a big deal. It's just a contract in the end. Love is what matters and marriage is not the same as love.

 

[Oxlar]

You said you didn't want to explain homosexuality. Do you not want to explain heterosexuality as well? So for the record, you don't have any moral views on homosexuality being bad/whatever, and if two guys/girls want to hold hands in a park or kiss, you'd view it the same way as a heterosexual couple doing so?

For the record, I don't have any legal hangups on homosexuality. Although I may be disgusted by two guys kissing in the park, its perfectly within their rights to do so.

My argument is a kid can get "two people who love each other can get married" pretty easily, but arguments about the creation of the universe, existence/non-existence of a personal god, etc are way too complicated to expect a child to understand before they've developed their critical thinking skills. So I personally won't talk to the child about my religious beliefs or lack there of. When the child is old enough to understand I'll explain what I think and they can decide for themselves. I'm not opposed to the child learning about this stuff on their own as long as it's not forced down their throat.

The age of appropriate understanding is not the same for all subjects. But there is an age of understanding for all subjects.

If Catholic churches can feel free not to peform ceremonies between a Catholic and non-Catholic I'm pretty sure there would be protections for Churches who didn't want to marry homosexuals.

Then again, I'd argue that such actions should deprive them of their tax exempt status (not that they should have such status anyways)

And that is part of the conundrum. Should a wedding photographer be sued or jailed for not wanting to take on a job that entails shooting a gay marriage ceremony? Should a church have to provide services for something that their faith teaches is wrong? Collectively churches provide the largest amount of charity in the world. Should they lose their tax exemptions for following their faith? Do married couples have a constitutional right to demand that a church MUST marry them?

Well, you also argued to outlaw homosexual adoption and that local governments could outlaw gay marriage and it'd be okay. That's oppressing their civil rights. It also seemed like you were arguing everyone else should keep it totally concealed as well. If that's not the case, then my apologies.

I still stand by my assertation that adoption should not be allowed to gay couples unless no other home can be found. My view on this has more to do with the development of the child than the rights of the gay couple. I won't go into details so feel free to make up what ever you want about my view point. It is something you will not change and somewhat personal. I also stand by the rights of the local government to set wether or not gay marriage is performed in their state. I would be more inclined to support gay marriage if there were no strings attached to the rulings, as stated above.

 

[Pladio]

Objections to the adoption of children by LGBT persons include the claims that adopted children might suffer gender confusion or that the greater prevalence of depression, promiscuity, domestic violence, and suicide among homosexuals might affect children [35]. Numerous studies on LGBT parenting, however, aims to counter these claims with evidence, demonstrating that young children of lesbian parents (no information is available on gay fathers) fare as well as other children on many measures. Nevertheless, these studies do not distinguish between the parenting of a gay person’s biological children and the parenting of adopted children who are unrelated to them.[36][37]. In fact, research specific to adoption of unrelated children indicates that successful adoptions are those where both parent and adoptee recall similarities in personality, likes, and appearance.[38] Despite such opposing studies, the American Psychological Association[39], Child Welfare League of America,[40] believe LGBT parents are as qualified as heterosexuals.

The debate over LGBT adoption has sometimes examined the monetary cost of not letting LGBT persons adopt unrelated children. A report from UCLA Law School's Williams Institute and the Urban Institute found that forbidding LGBT adoption of children in foster care would cost the United States between $87 million and $130 million,[41] because of the reduced numbers of prospective adoptive parents. Since LGBT couples adopt special needs children at rates similar to others, this was not a major driver of savings. [42]

There are differing views regarding the fitness of same-sex partners to serve as parents for children. The American Psychological Association supports adoption and parenting by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays and noting that there is no empiric evidence that their parenting causes harm.[29][30][31] The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting same-sex adoption, and calling for its members to fight to reduce health disparities for children of same-sex parents.[32] Organizations supporting same-sex parenting cite a variety of studies in support of their position on parental fitness. According to the ACLU and the APA, a substantial number of peer-reviewed studies support the conclusion that, under similar socioeconomic conditions, children raised by lesbian couples (little data is available on gay fathers) are as likely to flourish as those raised by opposite-sex couples.[33][34] Moreover, an American Civil Liberties Union report on parenting by same-sex couples states that the vast majority of peer-reviewed sociological studies indicate that children raised in same-sex households are "relatively normal."[33]

Wiki - word limit

 

[Rithrandil]

For the record, I don't have any legal hangups on homosexuality. Although I may be disgusted by two guys kissing in the park, its perfectly within their rights to do so.

Fair enough. I wouldn't like it either, but then again I am not a fan of PDAs in general - I'd have the same reaction if I saw a heterosexual couple or a lesbian couple kiss in public.

The age of appropriate understanding is not the same for all subjects. But there is an age of understanding for all subjects.

I agree, and if I had a young kid I wouldn't want to give the sex-ed talk to 'em - I'd just leave it at the "love" aspect, personally. But, unfortunately, I think it's becoming more and more necessary to educate kids on sex at an increasingly younger age. I don't really like that, but abstinence-only education or not talking about it at all hasn't really worked.

And that is part of the conundrum. Should a wedding photographer be sued or jailed for not wanting to take on a job that entails shooting a gay marriage ceremony?

Jailed, no. Sued, maybe, I'd use whatever standards currently used regarding discrimination towards customers exist today.

Should a church have to provide services for something that their faith teaches is wrong?

No.

Collectively churches provide the largest amount of charity in the world. Should they lose their tax exemptions for following their faith?

I don't think churches should be tax exempt in the first place, but that's a battle I know I'll never win. Personally, I think any discriminatory group should lose tax exempt status. If your church believes abortion is wrong or that you don't like blood transfusions I wouldn't have an issue with them having tax exempt statuses.

Do married couples have a constitutional right to demand that a church MUST marry them?

No.

I still stand by my assertation that adoption should not be allowed to gay couples unless no other home can be found. My view on this has more to do with the development of the child than the rights of the gay couple. I won't go into details so feel free to make up what ever you want about my view point. It is something you will not change and somewhat personal.

Fair enough. If I saw evidence saying that being raised by a gay couple was harmful to children I'd probably be willing to put them at the bottom of the potential adopter list.

I also stand by the rights of the local government to set wether or not gay marriage is performed in their state.

I'd argue the full faith and credit clause means they're not able to do that, or at least that they would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

I would be more inclined to support gay marriage if there were no strings attached to the rulings, as stated above.

Fair enough.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

The opposite.

The body can play tricks upon you. The first months a love can be blinding, but it's only with time that a relationship suceeds or falls.

If people marry for the sake of marriage, marry to early, or marry to have sex, they will divorce more often. For this reason people in Sweden do not get married until they have been with each other for several years, making really sure that the relationship is stable before moving on.

Marrying early is seen as a sign of irresponsibility and others will assume that the marriage isn't serious and that it will fail.

Having had multiple partners prior to marriage gives a greater chance of finding the right one. And yeah, problems with sex is a great reason for people to get divorced. And women can still get HPV and die from their partner regardless if they are marry before sex or not. It's also possible to be allergic to your partners semen.

The United States have a culture that makes marriage more important than it is, leading to people marry each other when they shouldn't. Thus you get more divorce.

Not that divorce is a big deal. It's just a contract in the end. Love is what matters and marriage is not the same as love.

If that is the case then why does Sweden have the same divorce rate than in America? Also it seems i am wrong on the 50 times, it is only 30 times(Sri lanka is 1.5% and US is 54.8%, sweden is 54.9, i thought it was 1.3 and 70).

http://www.darndivorce.com/divorce-rates-around-the-world/

 

[JemyM]

If that is the case then why does Sweden have the same divorce rate than in America? Also it seems i am wrong on the 50 times, it is only 30 times(Sri lanka is 1.5% and US is 54.8%, sweden is 54.9, i thought it was 1.3 and 70).
http://www.darndivorce.com/divorce-rates-around-the-world/

Sweden have other issues and a vastly different culture to both.

 

[Rithrandil]

If that is the case then why does Sweden have the same divorce rate than in America? Also it seems i am wrong on the 50 times, it is only 30 times(Sri lanka is 1.5% and US is 54.8%, sweden is 54.9, i thought it was 1.3 and 70).

http://www.darndivorce.com/divorce-rates-around-the-world/

Your culture also probably is less accepting of divorce than ours, which would probably make it less likely.