Register to Comment
Page 29 of 75 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 39 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 742
Like Tree184Likes
  1. #281
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,134

    Quote Originally Posted by Radix View Post
    Yes indeed, but you are missing the point, that whilst homosexual 'couples' have absolutely no chance whatsoever of pro-creating, couples made up of genders which compliment each other, do have some chance of so doing!

    One union is potentially fruitful, and the other is absolutely not, by choice.

    This is something which cannot be argued with!
    it can of course be argued with on the basis that

    a) a woman with no ovaries has absolutely 0 chance of producing an egg

    and

    b) people aren't homosexual by choice any more than people are infertile by choice.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #282
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    32,069

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    Can you supply us with good reasons, apart from the assertion not being obvious to you, (which, by your own definition is no argument) you believe it to be false?
    I didn't say that I believed it to be false. I said that it's not obvious to me that it's true and that *one possible explanation for this* would be if the assertion was false.

    The point of asking for the evidence behind your claim is to test whether it is in fact false or whether it was merely something which was true but not obviously true to me.

    Here is my starting point: it seems plausible to suggest that children need parents who are loving and supportive of them. I can think of no way in which a man could be loving or supportive of a child which would be inferior to a way in which a woman would be loving and supportive of a child.

    If there are ways in which this would be possible, I would like to know what they are. If the claim is that it is just obvious, then I assume people who make this claim are in a position to provide the reasons.

    The alternative is that children require something in addition to love and support which can only be supplied by a man, and something else which can only be supplied by a woman. I would like to know what these things are, if that is the claim being made.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #283
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    32,069

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    I should have thought, Mercurial - and we've brushed past this one before - that it is not within your gift to define in any authoritative sense, what the terms of debate are for other posters..............
    There are uncontroversial objective claims which can be made about the likelihood of a constructive discussion, given certain facts. For example, if a poster merely asserts a claim and is unwilling to provide the reasons for the assertion, this is something which will be straightforwardly inimical to a productive discussion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #284
    Big Brother Big Brother is offline
    Big Brother's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,604

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitch 22 View Post
    An interesting letter has appeared in today's Irish Times:

    The Irish Times - Readers Letters and Feedback



    The letter writer continues:



    So could it be that gay marriage is in fact already legal and no referendum is actually required?


    Interesting post.

    Our view of the constitution is warped by the hatred for it in RTE / The Irish Times - outlets with cultures designed by those who never could stand how the native aboriginals had retaken their country.

    But even Dev didn't want to stop gay people living whatever life they wanted.

    He indulged MacLiammor and Hilton Edwards.

    He took his hat off in respect when the remains of Roger Casement were brought back to Ireland in 1965.

    The constitution has had a lot of hate projected onto it by those with a hidden agenda.

    But it might actually be compatible with same sex marriage.

    I do think, though, that kids need mothers and fathers and that in the case of adoption, the constitution would rightly uphold a child's right to be adopted by a traditional family.

    But as for allowing two people to live their lives as they wish and fulfill their love for each other - I'd be delighted if it upheld that as well.

    I don't agree with havnig to have a referendum on same sex marriage: No majority has a right to decide on or infringe the happiness and liberties of two adults.

    We need to reduce and limit government in this country, not expand it, and having referendums to decide whether adults can be happy or not is a step too far.

    On adoption though, this is different: Children's rights to a mother and father must be protected.

    I hope whatever decision is taken will at least allow for the two issues to be separated on: Same sex marriage without adoption should be passed by universal consent - public opinion here doesn't matter.
    But by the same token, no one has a right to take a child's right to a mother and father. Even if that right cannot always be upheld (death, abandonment) it should be stated as a reference value in our constitution.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #285
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,134

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Brother View Post
    Children's rights to a mother and father must be protected.
    There is no such right legally speaking.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #286
    Boggle Boggle is offline
    Boggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,409

    Quote Originally Posted by Roll_On View Post
    There is no such right legally speaking.
    If there was then children would be removed from single parents.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #287
    Feckkit Feckkit is offline
    Feckkit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,232

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    I didn't say that I believed it to be false. I said that it's not obvious to me that it's true and that *one possible explanation for this* would be if the assertion was false.
    You're squirming now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    The point of asking for the evidence behind your claim is to test whether it is in fact false or whether it was merely something which was true but not obviously true to me.
    I wasn't the one who made the claim. In fact, it wasn't a claim in any case, it was an observation, and one which I happen to agree with. We are somewhat stuck because you keep on insisting that it may be "merely something which was true but not obviously true to me", and my jury is out on whether that is a politic, academic avoidance for the sake of discussion, or whether you cannot truly see that male as well as female parental input to a child's upbringing is an optimum, and something to be desired.

    *I suspect, given the nature of your input to this board, that it all hinges on a form of academic argument for you - and I do not mean any offence by this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    Here is my starting point: *it seems plausible to suggest that children need parents who are loving and supportive of them.
    *That is an example of the sort of academic, on-paper approach, to which I alluded above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    I can think of no way in which a man could be loving or supportive of a child which would be inferior to a way in which a woman would be loving and supportive of a child.
    Nobody was ever suggesting that the input of either gender was either inferior or superior. Complementary, yes. Exposing the developing child to the natural traits of both genders in a family environment, yes. There is a sequence here. Go for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    If there are ways in which this would be possible, I would like to know what they are. If the claim is that it is just obvious, then I assume people who make this claim are in a position to provide the reasons.
    Hands-on experience is sometimes difficult to put in words, and indeed, it is something that often cannot be replaced by words, like Mark Twain and his cat-by-a-tail tale.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #288
    Feckkit Feckkit is offline
    Feckkit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,232

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    There are uncontroversial objective claims which can be made about the likelihood of a constructive discussion, given certain facts. For example, if a poster merely asserts a claim and is unwilling to provide the reasons for the assertion, this is something which will be straightforwardly inimical to a productive discussion.

    I don't really see why. An assertion may be self-evident, borne of experience, generally accepted, previously supported well known and so on. If you don't 'get' why an assertion made does not seem plausible to you, then it is possible the deficiency is on your side of the fence and further reseach on your part is needed. That is part of the cut and thrust of any discussion.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #289
    Mercurial Mercurial is offline
    Mercurial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    32,069

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    You're squirming now.
    By correction your characterization of my earlier comments? I don't think that amounts to "squirming" on any reasonable definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    I wasn't the one who made the claim. In fact, it wasn't a claim in any case, it was an observation, and one which I happen to agree with.
    You appear to agree that the essentialist claim is obviously true. It's certainly possible that you think it's obviously true for different reasons than the poster who originally made it, but that wouldn't suggest there would be any less reason to ask you for an explanation (given that none is likely to come from elsewhere in this case).

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    We are somewhat stuck because you keep on insisting that it may be "merely something which was true but not obviously true to me", and my jury is out on whether that is a politic, academic avoidance for the sake of discussion, or whether you cannot truly see that male as well as female parental input to a child's upbringing is an optimum, and something to be desired.
    I'm attempting to be precise in what my claim is. My claim is that it is not obvious to me what it is that a man provides a child as a parent which a woman does not, and vice verse.

    The idea you suggest above, that the *optimum* for a child requires the input of a male and female is a slightly different claim, which is stronger than merely holding that there are qualitative differences between how men and women parent. If there are differences, it does not necessarily follow that the optimum for a child includes both male and female; there may be differences which do not matter in terms of a child's upbringing.

    Before that claim can be examined, the weaker thesis needs an explanation, i.e. that there are things men provide by way of parenting which women cannot and vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    *I suspect, given the nature of your input to this board, that it all hinges on a form of academic argument for you - and I do not mean any offence by this.
    I'm not sure what the alternative is. Although I suppose I am technically a kind of academic if one were to use a fairly liberal definition of the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feckkit View Post
    Nobody was ever suggesting that the input of either gender was either inferior or superior. Complementary, yes. Exposing the developing child to the natural traits of both genders in a family environment, yes. There is a sequence here. Go for it.
    I take it that the idea is that there are "natural traits" possessed by men and women, which compliment each other, and that the child needs to be exposed to these traits in a way which is not possible given two men or two women.

    That's at least two, possibly three or even four, distinct claims. Can you give an example of a "natural male trait" and a "natural female trait"? (Preferably ones that compliment each other, and preferably ones you think are relevant to child-rearing).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #290
    PeacefulViking PeacefulViking is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    778

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien View Post
    Marriage has been redefined constantly over the last thousand years, Keith. It has NEVER been unchanging.



    Marriage used to be defined as purely between two people of the same race. That was only axed in part of the US in the 1960s. In the early 1900s some bigots tried to get that definition written into the US constitution. They failed.
    That was a requirement in some places, never a universal rule. It was never the law in Ireland or the UK for example that you had to be the same race to marry.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 29 of 75 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 39 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment