On Sep 20, 2:09 pm, Pilgrim wrote:
> The problem with your statistics is that they're not measuring the
> actual lives these people live. Most ... men are not going to have
> children. To get a clear picture, we have to do studies of ... men
> who adopt or have surrogate children. The statistics you're tossing
> out are useless until that happens and you're mixing up studies that
> have nothing at all to do with ... issues and claiming that they are
> somehow relevant.
They are relevant, they're just not conclusive in isolation. In the
same way, your anecdotes are relevant, but remain only anecdotes until
we have a bigger picture.
> There are also major psychological issues that ... people have to
> battle - coming from people like you who argue against equal
> treatment. Quite a large number are rejected by their own parents
> when they come out. They are also rejected by their churches and by
> their communities. This is especially true for ... men and until that
> stops, there will be a lot of traumatized people whose lives suffer
> because of it.
It is all sadly true that many people reject ...s as people, and ...s
have suffered and continue to suffer unspeakably because of it. But
having reservations or about, or flat out opposing homo.ual
parenting, is not the same thing as rejecting ...s.
> > > Single motherhood happens for any number of reasons, Ken.
>
> > Of course it does. Let's not add one more reason.
>
> I'm not adding any new reasons. These reasons already exist. I'm
> simply being realistic about it.
You want to make it easier, which would make it more common. I would
like to make it easier without making it more common.
> Wha? You're imagination is fascinating. I'm not comparing anything.
> Both my parents were straight, btw. The comparison is invalid because
> it was only in your head. I just provided a personal example of a
> situation involving single parenting.
Well then I don't know what relevancy it has.
> > > > > > > The difference between ... male
> > > > > > > relationships and straight relationships is the recognition of open
> > > > > > > relationships
>
> > > > > > You can call it what you want, it doesn't work.
>
> > > > > It works for some people. The level of honesty, equality and respect
> > > > > in the relationship is imortant.
>
> > > > That's like saying that if human beings on average had much better
> > > > character, we wouldn't need so many restrictive laws. That's true, but
> > > > it's also fantasy.
>
> > > No, it just means that I don't believe I should dictate how other
> > > people live their relationships.
>
> > What it means to you is that want to "dictate," if you must think in
> > those terms, to society that they have to treat a same-. arrangement
> > the same as an opposite-. one. What it means is that you want to put
> > kids in relatively untried arrangements for the sake of _the parents_.
>
> The kids are already in "untried arrangements", b
To repeat: You want to make those arrangements easier, which would
make them more common. We both have the interests of the kids at
heart, but I would like to make it easier, i.e. better for the kids
already in them, without making it more common, given that we don't
know how good it can be.
> but now you're getting
> clearer about what your real issue is. You don't want to let the
> coloreds drink from the same fountain as the whites or go to the same
> schools!
That's an extremely superficial analogy and as such is cheap, below
the belt rhetoric. Again, I show you guys respect, and when I think
you have a point, I say so. You compare me to a racist. Enough said.
If you have no apology to make, I'm done.
|