Forward into the Middle Ages

[Ravenstorm]

Discuss.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=751&e=7&u=/afp/20031211/hl_afp/italy_health_fertility

[HarmNone]

Heh. Good old head-in-the-sand conservatism at its finest. What was that old saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

HarmNone is not really surprised

[Latrinsorm]

Damned Freemasons!

<mutter>

[Snapp]

Really sad. I actually am suprised at that. I thought the world was moving forward, not backward...

[Skirmisher]

Italy's govt is a joke.

Even italians will admit that.

[theotherjohn]

The law bans heterogeneous insemination, or insemination by a third party outside a couple.

I do not understand what everyone's problem with this is?

I understand and approve of the law.

edit: to add last line

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by theotherjohn]

[Hulkein]

It is unnatural for homosexuals to raise children, that is what people's problem is. Not everyone cares to 'go forward' when it comes to certain areas. Moving forward isn't always a good thing.

Disclaimer: I know how you all feel, I argued for an hour or two in that other thread so I'm not trying to argue, just stating how their government feels and how many feel.

Edit: The title of this thread is pretty stupid if you ask me since like 20 years ago the anti-gay laws were as strong as ever.. You don't need to go back to the middle ages.

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

The impact on gays is actually the least of it. I suppose it's one of those things that if it doesn't immediately leap out at you, you're just not going to get it.

Raven

[i remember halloween]

i guess i'm not getting it either. yea what a step backwards it is not to let a bunch of people that shouldn't raise kids do it.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
i guess i'm not getting it either. yea what a step backwards it is not to let a bunch of people that shouldn't raise kids do it.

Single women who want children shouldn't be able to do it without being married then?

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Snapp
Single women who want children shouldn't be able to do it without being married then?

correct.

Family is a father, a mother and child.

[GSLeloo]

See I think this is ridiculous...

First of all many single women could do a lot better raising a child on their own than with a man and that should be up to them, not the country. Why should a woman HAVE to marry just to have kids? If she wants to and is ready and willing, let her have kids her own way.

Next, as I have stated in the thread I created about gay marriages... as long as they want the child, have a stable home environment, and are able to support the child, why not? They don't put limits or restrictions on anyone else to have children, don't put it on homosexuals. As long as the child is loved and cared for, that's all that matters.

[GSLeloo]

And family is not a father and a mother. Cause jesus christ a lot of us have a father and a mother and siblings and that can't even be considered a family because the home environment is so fucked up. A family is a group of people that love each other, the sex doesn't matter and neither do the "roles" that have to be there. Some people don't have parents, they have grandparents to raise them or guardians and it's still a family.

[DaMaGe]

I believe that this is a step in the right direction.

Two members of the same gender should not carry on a personal ( read: sexual ) relationship. It is an abomination. It isn't natural.

As far as single women who aren't married, I agree that they should be able to bear and raise a child if they so choose. But that is because I have very different views on marriage than most.


-Adam

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by GSLeloo

They don't put limits or restrictions on anyone else to have children, don't put it on homosexuals.


They should put limits and restrictions on everyone.

Many many people are not fit to be parents regardless of sexuality.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by theotherjohn

They should put limits and restrictions on everyone.

Many many people are not fit to be parents regardless of sexuality.


I agree with you.. Many people who have children are far from fit. They should put some restrictions there.. but I see how it is hard. My question is.. why should you restrict a whole group of people because they are homosexual.. or choose to be single? There are many single mothers (some divorced, some never married) that do a great job.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The impact on gays is actually the least of it. I suppose it's one of those things that if it doesn't immediately leap out at you, you're just not going to get it.

Raven

I understand the impact on single women too, but why in the hell would a single women want to be artificially inseminated? The reason it bans single women from the procedure in MY opinion is because that will weed out homosexual women pretending to want to raise a child as a single hetero, when in fact they are part of a lesbian relationship.

I also see the part about it restricting the use of deceased people's semen or eggs, but I really don't have an opinion on that either way so I didn't mention it. I did notice it, however.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I understand the impact on single women too, but why in the hell would a single women want to be artificially inseminated? The reason it bans single women from the procedure in MY opinion is because that will weed out homosexual women pretending to want to raise a child as a single hetero, when in fact they are part of a lesbian relationship.

At least you are up front about your bigotry.

[Hulkein]

Get a life besides bashing others for their opinions, I don't go out forcing my POV on people or bashing gays, I just personally don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to raise children. Grow up you PC thug.

personal view here nothing more
agree with parts and disagree with others... one single women... It is a known fact that children who grow up without a father be it stable or unstable are more prone to being deliquent and or criminal later in life
as much as the being gay has been debated over the years one of the disadvantages of being gay is losing the ablility to procreate, modern technology has bypassed that, I personaly do not agree with artifical insenimation in any form.

it all relates to the whole man trying to become god.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Get a life besides bashing others for their opinions, I don't go out forcing my POV on people or bashing gays, I just personally don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to raise children. Grow up you PC thug.

I don't quite see why you had such a strong reaction to my own response.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

If you don't wish to be called one, don't be one. Simple enough.

[Hulkein]

Well, I'm not obstinately or intolerantly (Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.) 'devoted' to them seeing as I DO tolerate them because I don't go around telling everyone else their wrong, and seeing as I don't publically lobby to get others to agree, so I'm not a biggot.

Edit- Fuck it, I don't even care if you think I'm a biggot, lol. Whatever makes you feel better, go ahead and call me one.


[Edited on 12-13-2003 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

The lol defense.

Well played.

[GSLeloo]

Why would a single woman want to have a child? Because she's a lesbian? Um... wrong. See that just makes you seem homophobic and perhaps you're scared of it because you're scared you are one...

Anyway, say a woman believes she is ugly and no man would want to marry her. She is still a woman and still wants to have a child so she takes matters into her own hands. Why is that bad?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Why would a single woman want to have a child? Because she's a lesbian? Um... wrong. See that just makes you seem homophobic and perhaps you're scared of it because you're scared you are one...

Anyway, say a woman believes she is ugly and no man would want to marry her. She is still a woman and still wants to have a child so she takes matters into her own hands. Why is that bad?

Leloo, you really make me think you're less intelligent with every post I see on topics that require analytical thinking. I didn't say that every single woman that wants to have a child is a lesbian, I said that the law probably covers single women BECAUSE of the fact that if it didn't state that then any lesbians who want children would simply pretend to be hetero. I'm not scared of homo's in any way shape or form, you don't see me bashing their way of life at all, just their ability to raise children.

she can find somebody to fuck her she does not need to have it done in a test tube

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The lol defense.

Well played.

Actually, my defense was - Well, I'm not obstinately or intolerantly (Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.) 'devoted' to them seeing as I DO tolerate them because I don't go around telling everyone else their wrong, and seeing as I don't publically lobby to get others to agree, so I'm not a biggot.

[Skirmisher]

Your understanding of the term is flawed.

Simply being a quiet bigot does not make you less one.

[Hulkein]

I took the definition you gave me and proved that I don't fall under it, nice try.

[GSLeloo]

I am plenty intelligent. I am simply open minded and me being that confuses you because you can't understand it. To assume that a government would prevent women from getting the procedure done because they might be lesbians is absurd. I do not doubt the ability of a homosexual couple to raise children. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who have kids because they are too stupid/poor to buy birth control and end up starving, beating, and raping their kids. Anyone who is able to raise a kid in a loving environment should be allowed to.

And if we were to restrict people from having children, I wouldn't allow bigots, racists, and assholes to have kids due to the fact that children are easily influenced. You wouldn't be allowed if it were in my terms.

skirmisher I hate to stand up for him but you do not know him well enough to understand if he is a bigot or not... You can not say he is filled with prejudice, and he like myself am always going to stand behind my opinion, you may disagree with thim but He has a valid point as does the other side. You only call him a bigot because he does not agree with your point of view

well how about this leloo, for far less money than articial insenimination the homosexual/single woman can go to a underprivledged country and adopt a young child or baby

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
To assume that a government would prevent women from getting the procedure done because they might be lesbians is absurd.

How is that absurd when they made a law to ban gays from having children through artificial insemination? I don't see the logic there... Ok then, if it is so absurd, give me a valid reason why they would ban single women from having kids through that procedure?

I'm calling you stupid NOT because you're open minded, Raven is open minded, so is Harmnone and I think they're both smarter then I am. I am calling you stupid because you couldn't discern WHAT I WAS SAYING. I never said 'signle women shouldn't be allowed to have kids through artificial insemination because they might be secretly gay!!11.' I said that the Italian government must have been thinking along those lines for them to pass that, law! Jesus Christ learn to NOT BE A SELECTIVE READER.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I took the definition you gave me and proved that I don't fall under it, nice try.

No my dear, you tacked on a rider to it as if it were a bill you were afraid of getting passed.

Nowhere did the definition mention preaching about or loudness of speaking of that belief.

You tried to add that yourself forwhatever reason.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

No my dear, you tacked on a rider to it as if it were a bill you were afraid of getting passed.

Nowhere did the definition mention preaching about or loudness of speaking of that belief.

You tried to add that yourself forwhatever reason.

Ok missy, I'll go by it step by step in hopes of it breaking through that thick dome of yours.

1- You said the definition of a bigot is 'a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.'

2- Upon readon that definition, one should come to the conclussion that in order for someone to be a big (under your definition) they would have to be either 'obstinately or intolerantly' devoted to .. prejudices. If you've come to this conclussion, then you must have also seen that the argument hinges on the definitions of 'obstinately' and 'intolerantly.'

3- Definition of obstinately - 'perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion'

I do not fall under this definition because one holding on to their opinions in this manner would be doing it in spite of being proposed an argument nullifying their reasons for doing so. I have yet to be given a study or valid argument that children will not be adversely affected being raised by a gay couple. (And no Leloo, your 'I've seen kids starved and any loving enviroment' isn't an argument, it is heresay.)


Definition of intolerantly 'Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.'

I don't fall under this catefory because I am perfectly willing to tolerate others opinions and practices... I am simply stating my opinion here because it was asked to be discussed.

Conclussion- I don't fall under your definition.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I have yet to be given a study or valid argument that children will not be adversely

affected being raised by a gay couple.

Show me evidence that says a child will be adversely affected by it.

You do have such evidence right? Otherwise, that would mean you're just pre-judging the situation in a negative way: assuming without any proof at all that a group of people who are merely different than you are are incapable of something. Not only incapable but bad at it based solely on their difference.

That sounds like prejudice to me. And that, I think is safe to say, is the root of bigotry.

Personally, I'd love to see such a study if it exists. The religious right has cleverly turned the tables on a society that is supposed to believe everyone is created equal and a person is innocent until proven guilty. Instead of them needing to prove a gay couple can NOT properly parent a child, they've demanded that proof be gathered to show they can. And the only thing they're basing their prejudices on is a religious text which can not legally be foisted onto the civil aspects of our country.

Raven

[Hulkein]

No, I don't have the evidence, but I'm not accusing anyone else of being a biggot.. Don't take something I say out of the context it was used in the argument.

You're right, there isn't proof in either direction, therefor I am allowed to hold an opinion one way, as you are another way, without being a bigot.

There is one HUGE difference here that some of you are failing to realize.... I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. Granted, I feel that the POV shared by me and The Edine and the majority of others is more correct then most I have seen here.. But what it comes down to is me giving you my opinion because it was asked and some people just like to attack others for their opinions, nothing you can do about it.

[Edited on 12-13-2003 by Hulkein]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I have yet to be given a study or valid argument that children will not be adversely affected being raised by a gay couple.

This statement is problematic in a couple of ways. First, it is circular reasoning. The opposite conclusion could be drawn by reversing the argument: I have yet to be given a study or valid argument that children WILL be adversely affected being raised by a gay couple.

The second part of the problem lies in the determination of what constitutes "adverse". Would a child, raised by a gay couple, who grew up to be gay be adversely affected? Would a child raised thusly who grew up to be heterosexual be adversely affected? What if the child grew up to be asexual, or bisexual? Would that child be adversely affected? It all depends on your viewpoint. :)

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Hulkein
No, I don't have the evidence, but I'm not accusing anyone else of being a biggot.. Don't take something I say out of the context it was used in the argument.

You're right, there isn't proof in either direction, therefor I am allowed to hold an opinion one way, as you are another way, without being a bigot.

[Ravenstorm]

[
Originally posted by Hulkein
You're right, there isn't proof in either direction, therefor I am allowed to hold an opinion one way, as you are another way, without being a bigot.


I don't really agree. I am willing to be convinced though so I'll present this...

"I don't believe a black person could be a good president. While there's no evidence one could not be, there's also no evidence one could be."

If I truly believed a black man could not be a good President just because he's black, how does that not make me a bigot?

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ok missy, I'll go by it step by step in hopes of it breaking through that thick dome of yours.
Alrighty, i'll have to let that missy thing go as I took the first shot with "my dear".


1- You said the definition of a bigot is 'a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.'

Simply pointing out that it was not I making up a definition, but Merriam-Webster so if you take issue with the definition do so with them.
Merriam-Webster Website (http://www.m-w.com/)


2- Upon readon that definition, one should come to the conclussion that in order for someone to be a big (under your definition) they would have to be either 'obstinately or intolerantly' devoted to .. prejudices. If you've come to this conclussion, then you must have also seen that the argument hinges on the definitions of 'obstinately' and 'intolerantly.'

3- Definition of obstinately - 'perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion'

I do not fall under this definition because one holding on to their opinions in this manner would be doing it in spite of being proposed an argument nullifying their reasons for doing so. I have yet to be given a study or valid argument that children will not be adversely affected being raised by a gay couple. (And no Leloo, your 'I've seen kids starved and any loving enviroment' isn't an argument, it is heresay.)

Definition of intolerantly 'Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.'

I don't fall under this catefory because I am perfectly willing to tolerate others opinions and practices... I am simply stating my opinion here because it was asked to be discussed.

You are intolerant because you would like to limit the rights of one or more groups of people with no reason, no proof, other than perhaps your personal opinion or hearsay which you chastised Leloo for using, yet somehow feel thats just.

Sorry, I don't agree that we can just remove the rights of subsections of society without some pretty damned convincing evidence and you have none.


Conclussion- I don't fall under your definition.

I disagree vehemently.

[Latrinsorm]

Intolerant : Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

Hulkein, I infer that you are not homosexual. I also presume that you may want children someday, as that is the way of all humans. This means you are intolerant, because you are opposed to gays being included. While you may not be obstinat (is it just me or did that used to be obstinant?) you are certainly intolerant. Thus, you are a bigot.

Regardless of any label we can stick on you, the discussion of gays having kids has already been hashed out to the end. It turns out it's ok for gays to have kids. Go fig, right? But yeah, it's over. Everything you could possibly say about this (that has any merit) has already been rebutted.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
[
Originally posted by Hulkein
You're right, there isn't proof in either direction, therefor I am allowed to hold an opinion one way, as you are another way, without being a bigot.


I don't really agree. I am willing to be convinced though so I'll present this...

"I don't believe a black person could be a good president. While there's no evidence one could not be, there's also no evidence one could be."

If I truly believed a black man could not be a good President just because he's black, how does that not make me a bigot?

Raven

One can see that a black man can be as good as a president as his white counterpart because there are ways to judge someones intelligence, leadership, charisma (and any other attribute a president needs) through other means/tests.

You can't test the way a human mind, psyche, and emotions develop.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
You are intolerant because you would like to limit the rights of one or more groups of people with no reason, no proof, other than perhaps your personal opinion or hearsay which you chastised Leloo for using, yet somehow feel thats just.

Nice argument, too bad it's flawed. You say 'any group of people.' Well I'm sure you'll also agree that people deemed mentally unstable (this is a group of people) shouldn't be allowed to adopt or have a kid through artificial insemination.. Why? Becuase the way the child may turn out is too much of a risk. Now mind you I am not in any way calling homos insane or mentally unstable, but the way their children will turn out is another matter. You give me proof that the majority will turn out 'normal' and I will say, OK. Until then, I am allowed to have any OPINION I want without being called a bigot. That is my point, and it is still viable. Now, if I was calling YOU a bigot or even insulting you for your opinions, then the onus of finding proof falls on me. That is not the case however.




I disagree vehemently.

That is fine, I am ok with others opinions.


As for Latrinsorm, you are correct with your assumptions... I guess most of what I said about the psyche of the kids earlier in this post can answer what you said too. (I don't want to triple post)

[Edited on 12-14-2003 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
You can't test the way a human mind, psyche, and emotions develop.

Now I'm wondering just what is so potentially traumatic that there's even a question.

I'll assume - correct me if I'm wrong - that you aren't thinking that gays are automatically worse parents than everyone else. That I would certainly call bigoted. It seems you're implying that you think that, for some reason, there mere fact of having two parents of the same sex would have some effect on a child.

Why? How is it different form two parents of differing sexes? Or four parents of differeing sexes, assuming a divorce with joint custody and both parents remarrying. Or a single parent after a divorce or death. Or two parents of different races or religions?

Perhaps you can explain.

Raven

[DaMaGe]

Holy shit.

You guys are grasping at straws, here.

All he stated was his reasoning for the laws against the artificial insemination of a single mother.

He has been trying to say ( I think ) 'let's agree to disagree'. You guys keep trying to pound home the fact that he is a bigot. If you can't have a discussion with someone who sees things differently than you do without slinging shit, I'd just keep my mouth shut.

But, you know, that's just me. I don't care to look like an ass.


-Adam

[Edited on 12-14-2003 by DaMaGe]

[Skirmisher]

The problem with his 'reasoning" Adam is that there is none.

He has an unsubstantiated prejudice which he feels is sufficiant to remove the rights of some people.

If you are able to substantiate it then please do, otherwise I think as you put it"i'd just keep my mouth shut".

[DaMaGe]

I'm not here to substantiate his claims.

I just feel that the 'you don't agree with me so you MUST be a bigot' approach to this debate isn't the most reasonable, you know?

[Skirmisher]

Ergo my listing of the Definition of the term Adam.

If it upsets him to fit such a label then there is only one person who can change that and it isnt me.

[Caiylania]

I live in Italy and have Italian friends. So I can testify that Italians do think their government needs an overhaul.... bigtime.

My personal feelings are this, there are Straight couples who have NO right raising a child. Women who get pregnant just for more welfare, or because they are not responsible.

Being a good parent has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are in a love with a man or women of the same sex as you.

As long as you love children in a healthy way and will do your best to raise them in a happy enviroment and provide for them you should be allowed to have children.

And as for the Catholic religion's point of view, I was raised Catholic but for one example of their hypocrisy...

They do not believe in birth control because it is God's choice for you to become pregnant or not, so human's should not have the right to prevent said pregnancy.

Yet, should a Catholic woman NOT be able to concieve, I have read about Churches getting donations and helping a woman find a fertility clinic.

That is hypocrisy.