Originally Posted By RC Collins mele: >>I was referring to the Golden Rule when I talked about being judgmental. You know that Bible that you think so highly of? I think there's a few comments in there about judging other people...<< There sure are. And they are very, very often misused in an effort to try to get people to shut up about stuff that is either clearly taught by the Bible as wrong, or common sense should already tell us is wrong. But if we go by your apparent use of them, you can’t judge me as wrong to express my views here – so you are violating your own point. >>These people legally can have children, just like you and your wife so there's no point in discussing the legal side.<< I was talking nature. They are not bringing children into the world as a result of an unplanned pregnancy or as a natural result of their lovemaking. They have to use at least one third party and make the conscious decision to go ahead and put in the effort to do this. And yes, there are male/female couples that have trouble conceiving, but not because of their natural gender. >>You said they were bringing a child into a bad home.<< I don’t think I used those words. I said they are, by design, depriving the child of a father, and all other things being equal, that is not good. >>If you are going to hold others up to you "moral" standard, then be prepared to live up to theirs.<< I’m simply expressing an opinion. I have no problem with anyone else expressing theirs, too. >>As to "making a mockery" of mascuilinity/femininity, GMAFB...any strip club makes a mockery of that.<< How does that negate what I’ve said? I’ve never darkened the door of a strip club. When I’m hungry, I don’t go pay to look at a plate of food being slowly unveiled and shaken around. You’re right – a good argument could be made for such businesses making a mockery of masculinity and femininity.
Originally Posted By RC Collins Dabob2: >>What did you mean by "game," then?<< By “game†I meant that the gay man who hits on me does not require me to accept his proposal. That would be rape. He is not insisting I call him something I don’t believe he is. A man who insists I call him a woman is asking me to do something that I disagree with. There is a distinct difference between a man saying “I am gay. I have tickets for “Wicked†– would you like to join me for a date?†and a man saying “I’m a woman. Refer to me as a woman.†>>Of course they conceived intentionally. But the intention was not to deprive anyone of a father.<< But they knew that was an unavoidable consequence of their actions. >>A straight couple where the father, say, is in a wheelchair don't "intentionally" bring a child into the world where they know the dad will never be able to play catch, play football, etc. with his son.<< A father is a wheelchair is a far different matter than no father at all. I get it – they don’t really think it is important for a child to have a father. I get that. I just don’t agree. Yes, it happens because a father gets killed or a woman made a bad choice in who she let knock her up, or a woman chooses to carry a baby who was conceived by rape to term. But in this case, we’re talking *by design* (and I’m not excusing women who choose to get knocked up by unreliable men, or the men, or women who choose to use a sperm bank and raise a child alone). They are saying fathers are not important, or at least not as important as fulfilling their desire to have a child… which nature has never granted two women by themselves. I disagree – I believe both mothers and fathers are important to a child.
Originally Posted By RC Collins mele >>He is also very vocal about his feelings that Christians are treated with much intolerance in today's society.<< In some cases, Christians are. Thankfully, it isn’t like some parts of the world. >>I find that ironic considering his stubbornness and negativity towards others, yet he seems to think his beliefs and lifestyle should be given more respect.<< No more respect than anyone else’s. These women are free to do what they have done. I should be free to say it is a bad idea. >>What's more, it is his refusal to respect other lifestyles in the name of Christ that is\precisely WHY Christian views aren't being tolerated as much.<< Perhaps you have a different understanding of tolerance than I do. If you agree with something or are indifferent to it, that is not “tolerating†it. Tolerance comes in when you disagree with something, but you refrain from using force to stop it – you “tolerate†it. >>The Golden Rule trumps everything, IMO. If we ALL practiced it consistantly, this world would be a much happier place.<< Ultimately, I would want others to let me know if I was doing something wrong. That is consistent with the Golden Rule. I do respect the beliefs of other people. I don’t disrespect them by patronizing people and pretending that my beliefs do not disagree with theirs. I don’t agree with everything everyone believes, and neither do you, because it is impossible to do so. Never here have I told anyone they shouldn’t be able to disagree with me or my beliefs. I do believe in being nice to other people. But part of being nice is upholding that which is beneficial. Silently sitting by as our culture continues to degrade masculinity and femininity and motherhood and fatherhood, which is having negative effects on people, is NOT “niceâ€.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>No more respect than anyone else’s. These women are free to do what they have done. I should be free to say it is a bad idea.<<< Agreed. the pendulem has swung to far the other way. I am actually happy to stand up and say, I think these women are in the wrong. To me it feels like a form of perversion, and I am uncomfortable about these folks doing this. I don't care if they love each other and are married. That's fine, they were not hurting anybody. But I do not agree with them having children.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Silently sitting by as our culture continues to degrade masculinity and femininity and motherhood and fatherhood, which is having negative effects on people, is NOT “niceâ€.<<< Again RC Collins, I agree. I think Jon Nadelburg's (jonvn's) blog today has had some very interesting comments on this matter. It is almost like it is a bad thing to raise boys up to be boys. I get it, there has been mysogenism and homophobia for time immemorium, however, it doesn't make the pendulum swinging the other way right either. I am proud to be a man, I love women, and I want my son to grow up the same way. If he said to me "Dad, I'm gay" I would not be happy, but I would love and support him, for I would want him to be happy as long as it is not illegal or harming to anyone. If he said "Dad, I want a sex change", I would explore his reasons and support him through it, and probably cry myself to sleep at night and feel guilty for the rest of my life. But if he had a sex change and then said he was having a baby, I would call him out for making irresponsible choices. And that's what I think this couple has done, they have made irresponsible choices.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dabob2: >>What did you mean by "game," then?<< <By “game†I meant that the gay man who hits on me does not require me to accept his proposal. That would be rape. He is not insisting I call him something I don’t believe he is. A man who insists I call him a woman is asking me to do something that I disagree with.> You apparently disagree that people, even those who have felt since childhood that they are "a boy born with a girl's body" (or vice versa) should change their sex in the first place. But people do. It's not quick and easy and it's nothing anyone does without a great deal of thought. Why be unkind or impolite after the fact? It's not like you're going to get them to change back. All you're doing is making their life just a little more difficult to satisfy some ideology you hold that there is male and there is female and there is no gray area. Well, most sex researchers today agree that there is indeed a gray area for some people, uncomfortable as that seems to make you. <There is a distinct difference between a man saying “I am gay. I have tickets for “Wicked†– would you like to join me for a date?â€> Thanks for the stereotype. <and a man saying “I’m a woman. Refer to me as a woman.â€> Legally she may be a woman. Hormonally also. Psychologically. Every way but genital-wise, and even there it may be ambiguous. But hey, if you want to refuse to call people what they wish to be called because you "disagree" with them, it's a free country. But we're free to say that it says much more about you than the object of your disdain. >>Of course they conceived intentionally. But the intention was not to deprive anyone of a father.<< <But they knew that was an unavoidable consequence of their actions.> That's not what you said. You said it was their intention. >>A straight couple where the father, say, is in a wheelchair don't "intentionally" bring a child into the world where they know the dad will never be able to play catch, play football, etc. with his son.<< A< father is a wheelchair is a far different matter than no father at all. I get it – they don’t really think it is important for a child to have a father. I get that. > No. If that's how you see it, you obviously don't get it. You're still coming from the wrong assumptions. <Yes, it happens because a father gets killed or a woman made a bad choice in who she let knock her up, or a woman chooses to carry a baby who was conceived by rape to term. But in this case, we’re talking *by design* (and I’m not excusing women who choose to get knocked up by unreliable men, or the men, or women who choose to use a sperm bank and raise a child alone). They are saying fathers are not important, or at least not as important as fulfilling their desire to have a child… which nature has never granted two women by themselves. I disagree – I believe both mothers and fathers are important to a child.> And the mother who divorces the father and takes a job across the country so that the father sees the kids perhaps once a year? It's not that anyone feels fathers are unimportant. It's that they understand that countless women, alone and in couples, have raised wonderful kids. I know some myself. So have fathers alone. And countless mother-and-father pairs have one or both members who are abusive, neglectful, or just plain bad parents. The quality of the parenting is far more important than the gender.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>And the mother who divorces the father and takes a job across the country so that the father sees the kids perhaps once a year? It's not that anyone feels fathers are unimportant. It's that they understand that countless women, alone and in couples, have raised wonderful kids. I know some myself. So have fathers alone. And countless mother-and-father pairs have one or both members who are abusive, neglectful, or just plain bad parents. The quality of the parenting is far more important than the gender.<<< This too is also true. Having been raised by my Mom between the ages of 1 and 13. That's not my irk here. It is the idea of this couple having a baby. To me that seems wrong. Even from the physical development angle (funny how people seemed to ignore my post on that one) let alone all the emotional baggage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If this couple had kept it quiet I could have accepted the idea that they wanted kids, the older woman could no longer have them, and the woman in the process of becoming a man still could, and wanted biological children... But the fact that they went on Oprah and made a big deal about a pregnant man and all that says to me that in this individual case there's at least a little grandstanding going on besides the desire to have kids (i.e. a desire for their 15 minutes, and/or a book deal or something).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo True, but even if it happened on the quiet, well, I am not cool with this. Someone pumped so full of hormones to make the transition, to then need the opposite is not good for the child's physical development. Also, if the other one was too old to have kids, well the body has a biological clock for a reason (there is 21 years difference between my baby brother and I, and believe me, he does not have the same experience and relationship that I did with my parents). And then add the psychological impact of the poor child, if it lives.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Silently sitting by as our culture continues to degrade masculinity and femininity>> I don't know that our society "degrades" masculinity and femininity - what I see happening is just a change in the traditional gender roles. To me, it seems like men and women are beginning to behave a lot more like one another than they did in the past. Perhaps it's because boys and girls aren't as seperated as they once were - they tend to play more together than they did in earlier times. Plus, we no longer have exclusively male roles and female roles in society anymore - women can work and men can stay home and raise the kids if they desire. And I just don't see anything wrong with that. But I do see a lot of fear among some that we are somehow losing something as our society changes. I just don't see the changes as a bad thing, and think we'll end up with a much better culture in the long run.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Someone pumped so full of hormones to make the transition, to then need the opposite is not good for the child's physical development.> I don't think we know that - it wouldn't surprise me, but this is the first such situation I've heard about, so I would imagine there haven't been any studies about it one way or the other.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>><Someone pumped so full of hormones to make the transition, to then need the opposite is not good for the child's physical development.> I don't think we know that - it wouldn't surprise me, but this is the first such situation I've heard about, so I would imagine there haven't been any studies about it one way or the other.<<< No, that's true. But I have seen much disability working with families where there are genetic issues and where there are issues where babies are born to drug addicts creating problems. My hypothesis is this baby will not be very healthy. It will be interesting to see if it is, but I am a little cynical on this one.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>And I just don't see anything wrong with that. But I do see a lot of fear among some that we are somehow losing something as our society changes. I just don't see the changes as a bad thing<<< I disagree. I agree in equality, absolutely. But I also think we are losing something with the lines blurring. I think it's great to wear suits and ties, and to be manly. I like women to be feminin. I think we are losing a lot in the way things are become too PC. I recommend anyone who does not feel this way sees Demolition Man and 1984. I don't want a world like that. I want to admire and be admired. I want my daughter to sway and my son to swagger. I like to cook, I enjoy the arts, cry at movies, and don't like sports. But I also love Cars, women, and adventure. My son is turning out the same. My daughter loves dresses and shoes, as well as cars and Star Wars. to me this is a great balance. But I am a man, my wife is a women, and we have both physiological and psychological differences, and we should be able to celebrate that.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I recommend anyone who does not feel this way sees Demolition Man and 1984" I guess I just don't see the connection here - how do men and women acting more equal lead to the distopias seen in those movies? "I want my daughter to sway and my son to swagger." But what if you son wants to sway and your daughter swagger? I guess what I mean by equality is really "choice". Men and women now have more choice about who they want to be - they are more equal in being able to choose how they are perceived by the world. If a man wants to be more like what was traditionally seen as feminine, that should be ok. Even in your description of yourself, some of those traits could be seen as traditionally feminine - like cooking and crying at movies. But there's nothing wrong with a man enjoying things like that - and there shouldn't be. Nor should there be anything wrong with women who want to wear suits and run a large corporation. And I'm glad to see that our society is allowing people to act how they want to. Traditional gender roles should not be allowed to stop anyone from living a life that they want.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I agree with that. My wife is a full time domestic goddess. I am a little jealous. I went to school and post grad, and worked hard (sacrificed a life)for 12 years to get where I am professionally. Sarah is not very academic and is a hard worker. But the reality is, we decided one of us would stay at home and one would work before the kids went to school. I sometimes wish I got the house hubby role as I adore my family. It wasn't to be. And I have worked with and fore some fantastic women. This is not the equality issue I am talking about. As long as it's legal and no one gets hurt, people should be able to do what they want. But when I go into a briefing event I hear there are "too many men there" or am criticised for being in charge because I am a man (rather than the fact I have not had a social life for 12 years) - I get annoyed. Also, I like to open doors for elderly, disabled and women, but then when you are treated for being a sexist pig for being a gentleman, well it's no wonder the world is becoming so selfish. I do think those dystopias are coming in some way.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "But when I go into a briefing event I hear there are "too many men there" or am criticised for being in charge because I am a man" I believe you have said before you work in government? If so, that may be why you are seeing this more than I think would be normal. It's been my experience that government agencies tend to be more concerned about equality issues than other companies, since they don't want to be perceived as unfair or biased. I know when I work with government agencies here in the US they tend to be more diverse than similar organizations outside the gov't. Of course, it's not such a bad thing that they are trying to diversify. I think it's just things leveling out, and we'll eventually reach more of an equalibrium. People will stop worrying about whether someone is a man, woman, black, white or purple eventually - and we'll just focus on the job qualifications. At least, I hope so. "I do think those dystopias are coming in some way." I'm more concerned about what's going to happen when the oil finally runs out than I am about gender roles creating a dystopia!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>People will stop worrying about whether someone is a man, woman, black, white or purple eventually - and we'll just focus on the job qualifications. At least, I hope so.<<< That would be my wish too. I don't care what someone looks like (as long as they are clean and professional), their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability/disability as long as they are good at what they do and work hard. That's the bottom line.
Originally Posted By DAR I didn't think this topic would have lasted this long but it's like it's in a second trimester.
