 |
|
paramir
|
|
To anybody who opeses gay mariage i ask you this:What bad will come if it is allowed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
BK--did you follow the link I sent?
You seem remarkably unimaginative for someone with a hearing impairment, as well as uninformed about how technology helps deaf parents of hearing children. Your own situation was 20 years ago, so I suppose that's understandable. But the fire alarm comment is particularly baffling, since I know there are such alarms designed with deaf people in mind. At my campus, a deaf student had a doorbell which caused her lights to flash, and the fire alarm did the same thing. She was never missing from those lovely 2 AM fire drills.
This is why blanket denials of adoptions based on some sort of group is bullshit. Deaf parents can be and are wonderful, loving parents of hearing children. Decisions about the suitability of a family should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not on demographic discrimination. The same applies for gay couples.
As for claims there are plenty of parents and just red tape in the way, I call BS on that. I'd love to see some support for that claim. Yes, there are plenty of "traditional" couples looking to adopt healthy, cute babies. But go up the age scale in the foster kid network, and you'll find it very hard to find couples who want to adopt kids older than toddlers, or ones with medical conditions that require a lot of care. Considering the median age of foster kids is 8, I find the claims that there are people beating down the doors to adopt such kids quite dubious, considering testimony from social workers involved contradicts that notion.
That's why I linked to www.lethimstay.com. I'm sure you're unimpressed, but if you read that site, you'll realize these weren't kids people are clamoring to adopt. Sadly, most couples don't want kids like those. Thankfully, they have a loving couple that does want them and provides a great home. And they happen to be gay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:27
|
|
Kevin Brennan | Same-sex marriage and the Catholic church
quote:
[...]
One thing that gets missed--a lot--in these discussions is just how much most people's views on sexuality have changed over the last few decades. (Warning: generalizations and big picture stuff follows; individual experiences and anecdotes may vary).
Even going back a few decades, a common plot of movies and novels was the tragedy of two people falling in love who couldn't be together because they were married to other people. You can't tell that story anymore--the audience doesn't see the problem. Just leave your spouse and be with your true love. Today, every discussion is filtered through the belief that Love Conquers All.
I don't see it going back to the way it was. I'm not calling for a return to that era, merely pointing out that it once existed. The point is that relationships are now first and foremost about love, and the simplest proof of that is that the idea of a couple being together for any other reason now seems weird. I'm also not trying to construct an argument here about whether or not that's a good thing. Frankly, any attempt to address the consequences (both good and bad) of that change would require a book, or more likely several. For now, I just need you to acknowledge that it has occurred.
What does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, the change was in large part the result of the separation between sex and children that contraception made possible. Children have gone from being a consequence of sexuality to being a choice. (Yes, much cultural history has just been handwaved away--deal). The idealized vision of sex in our culture today is that it's a way for lovers to express themselves to one another. The Catholic Church, though, holds to an older view of sex--that its primary purpose is producing children. The other part--what modern culture views as the most important part--is only a side benefit.
From an orthodox Catholic viewpoint (not, BTW, exclusively developed by priests) modern Western society has perverted sexuality by viewing a secondary benefit of sex as the most important part of it. This understanding of sex underlies the Church's position on a lot of other matters, including divorce and abortion--not just homosexuality. It is a coherent, rational worldview once you accept its underlying principles. Most of all, it is backed up by centuries of debate and arguments by many of the finest philosophers and theologians in history.
The Catholic Church quite literally cannot change these teachings and continue to exist in anything like its present form. Catholicism places a high weight on tradition precisely because the Church views itself as the direct and lineal successor to the Apostles. The Church's magesterium--its teaching authority--comes from having preserved those teachings for two millennia. If it is wrong about something that important, it has no authority. Yes, the Church has shifted positions on some matters over time, but all of those shifts represented a change in emphasis, not a complete rethinking of the matter.
This is not a problem Protestant denominations have, even those more socially conservative than the Catholic Church. Every such church started because someone somewhere rejected the authority of others to teach them about the word of God. If the Catholic Church changes its views that radically, it admits that it has no more authority than anyone else to teach. That's not going to happen.
Maybe someone, somewhen, will be able to write a masterpiece of Jesuitical casuistry that manages to somehow reconcile a more modern view of sexuality with the historical teachings of the Church--but I, for one, have no idea how that would be accomplished. In the meantime, the Church won't be budging on this, or any related, issue. |
So, in other words, Catholicism is being a jackass because it will lose a great deal of face once it admits being wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris, I am close to being deaf. And I'll be the first one to say that if both myself and my wife were deaf, that I wouldn't want to adopt a child. I could not hear a crying child in the same room as me, let alone, a baby monitor.
You ask me about what it was like to raise a child, and I show you my dad who has somewhat better hearing than I do. He abhorred having to listen for us during the night, and if mom was not going to be home, would often have us stay with our grandparents, simply because he couldn't hear us.
I've seen some of what he's struggled with. It has nothing to do with the devotion, but more about the safety.
Boris, I can't even hear a fire alarm. How would I make sure, if I was the only one in the house, that my kids would get out in time?
There's a difference between having a child, and between adopting one. To regulate the first, infringes upon our liberties, while the second does not.
There are tons of kids, and tons of couples out there who want these children and give up because they are frusterated by the red tape thrown in their faces. |
Well let us give thanks you aren't running adoption agencies, Social Services departments or Childline in Great Britain then.
Richard Griffiths, distinguished British character actor:
"Date of birth: July 31, 1947
Place of birth: Stockton-on-Tees, England
Category: Actor
Nationality: British
Richard Griffiths has carved out a successful career as a character actor, perhaps most memorably as the lusty Uncle Monty in Withnail and I (1987). He also popped up in The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) and used his canny knack for dialect to take on two roles as Dr Mannheimer/Earl Hacker in Naked Gun 2 1/2 (1991). He also appear as Uncle Vernon Dursley in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The portly actor has also enjoyed a distinguished stage career and starred on TV in Pie in the Sky.
His parents were deaf mute and he learnt speech with the help of radio.
He was a mature student at Manchester University, after leaving school at 15. "
http://film.guardian.co.uk/Player/P...06345%2C00.html
 Attachment: griffiths1.jpg
This has been downloaded 66 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
You seem remarkably unimaginative for someone with a hearing impairment, as well as uninformed about how technology helps deaf parents of hearing children.
|
Let's just say I've gotten frusterated with much of the system that is supposed to be helping me.
I mean, I have a cell phone, for pete's sake because nothing else seems to work properly, which is probably the most unfriendly method for me to talk to people on the telephone.
quote:
Your own situation was 20 years ago, so I suppose that's understandable. But the fire alarm comment is particularly baffling, since I know there are such alarms designed with deaf people in mind. At my campus, a deaf student had a doorbell which caused her lights to flash, and the fire alarm did the same thing. She was never missing from those lovely 2 AM fire drills.
|
Never heard of that. First of all, what did her dormitory pay to have that installed? Secondly, did they agree to have it installed before she came in or not?
If I did that at my old dorm I would have been laughed at. Instead, what they did was the much simpler, and more effective, request for my RA to knock on my door, in the event of a fire alarm.
I never missed one of the drills.
Secondly, while a flashing light may work in a dorm, how would that work in the house? Would I have to have that hooked up to all the lights in the house, or just the bedroom?
Lights are good, but they are much less effective than sound, because you do not need to be looking at the light to see the light. I know this from dealing with my grandmother. You have to call several times because if she's looking the other way when her phone light flashes, she won't know that someone's trying to call her.
Finally, all this costs money. I don't really have money to pay for the installation of this stuff, unless the installation is paid for.
quote:
This is why blanket denials of adoptions based on some sort of group is bullshit. Deaf parents can be and are wonderful, loving parents of hearing children. Decisions about the suitability of a family should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not on demographic discrimination. The same applies for gay couples.
|
Your dismissal about 20 years ago, is not so. I lived with my dad until I was 18, and that was only 5 years ago. The problems are still there, with having to hear a baby cry in the night.
I think my points are still valid, about the safety, based on what I have seen from my aunt, (raising two kids on her own who is deaf), and my dad. Both of them, whenever their kids were little, would make sure that their kids were always in their sight, and couldn't let them out of their sight, or bad stuff would happen.
It's been a struggle. To blame their struggle on being unimaginative, is not really fair to either.
quote:
As for claims there are plenty of parents and just red tape in the way, I call BS on that. I'd love to see some support for that claim.
|
We had a thread, on why black kids can't get adopted by white families, because of the bs that the kids will feel ostracised. That's a huge piece of red tape there.
Plus you have the costs associated with adoption alluded to by Strawbow, that you haven't even acknowledged. That's red tape, and very discouraging to parents wishing to adopt.
quote:
Yes, there are plenty of "traditional" couples looking to adopt healthy, cute babies. But go up the age scale in the foster kid network, and you'll find it very hard to find couples who want to adopt kids older than toddlers, or ones with medical conditions that require a lot of care.
|
Granted. This is a big problem that will be there regardless of what you do. Your solution won't make this problem any better. Why would the people who have difficulties of their own wish to raise the most challenging kids?
quote:
Considering the median age of foster kids is 8, I find the claims that there are people beating down the doors to adopt such kids quite dubious, considering testimony from social workers involved contradicts that notion.
|
Did I say people clamoured to adopt foster kids? No. I referred to the younger kids, since no one specified earlier that the problem was more with adoption, or with foster children.
quote:
That's why I linked to www.lethimstay.com. I'm sure you're unimpressed, but if you read that site, you'll realize these weren't kids people are clamoring to adopt. Sadly, most couples don't want kids like those. Thankfully, they have a loving couple that does want them and provides a great home. And they happen to be gay.
|
I'm not impressed to be sure that this is a viable solution for the problems that you cited, but I agree that he should stay if he's already there.
Edit:
Here's another thing.
quote:
"Since I was the oldest child, my parents were delighted with the fact that I could hear. I was their interpreter, and at times I felt I was their guardian," she said. "I grew up very fast and did absolutely everything that involved hearing.
|
So you have children raising parents.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 05-02-2005 at 01:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
embalmer42
|
|
The Great State Of Insanity
Jan 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
I don't mean to stir the waters but so far in this thread I have not seen one point raised which I think could be important: if this legislation is passed, what is your opinion about religious leaders not being forced to marry gays? Would that survive a court challenge by a group demanding to be married by a church oppposed to gay marriage (regardless of what Paul says)? Would equality triumph over religious freedom in the supreme court?
And don't say it will never happen because someone would take the issue to court if only to make a name for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's just say I've gotten frusterated with much of the system that is supposed to be helping me.
I mean, I have a cell phone, for pete's sake because nothing else seems to work properly, which is probably the most unfriendly method for me to talk to people on the telephone. |
I don't see why your anecdotal, personal testimony should have any weight against the fact that plenty of deaf parents are able to raise hearing children quite well.
quote:
Never heard of that. First of all, what did her dormitory pay to have that installed? Secondly, did they agree to have it installed before she came in or not? |
What's that matter? The point is, means exist, and it worked. So if a hearing couple can have such systems in place that are effective, that takes care of the problems mentioned.
quote:
If I did that at my old dorm I would have been laughed at. |
So? I don't see why your aversion to public ridicule has anything to do with deaf parents raising children. Wouldn't such laughter reflect badly on those laughing, not you?
quote:
Lights are good, but they are much less effective than sound, because you do not need to be looking at the light to see the light. |
Not if it is all the lights. If the lights in a whole room flash, it will be noticed.
quote:
Finally, all this costs money. I don't really have money to pay for the installation of this stuff, unless the installation is paid for. |
So? We're not talking about money issues. The point is that such systems can be provided. Adoptees don't often end up in households that can't provide for their needs. So it's reasonable to expect a deaf couple wanting to adopt would need to be able to provide such tools.
quote:
I think my points are still valid, about the safety, based on what I have seen from my aunt, (raising two kids on her own who is deaf), and my dad. Both of them, whenever their kids were little, would make sure that their kids were always in their sight, and couldn't let them out of their sight, or bad stuff would happen. |
No, your points aren't valid. I would love to see some sort of evidence of a higher increase in child injury/fatality among deaf parents than hearing ones. Until then, bald assertions that it's unsafe and anecdotal evidence that ignores the reality that other deaf couples experience is pretty useless.
quote:
We had a thread, on why black kids can't get adopted by white families, because of the bs that the kids will feel ostracised. That's a huge piece of red tape there. |
And one I don't believe should be there, absolutely. You'll note the fellows at lethimstay.com have a mixed family, btw.
But this is curious that you discount such potential "ostracism" among racially mixed families, but one of the cruxes of your opposition to gay parenting is that the kids could experience ostracism from their peers over it. While it's refreshing to see such a tacit acknowledgement the homophobia is still a big problem, I find the hypocrisy of the positions startling.
quote:
Plus you have the costs associated with adoption alluded to by Strawbow, that you haven't even acknowledged. That's red tape, and very discouraging to parents wishing to adopt. |
I'm all about tearing down red tape, but keep in mind why much of this red tape exists. It's hard work to sift through couples wanting to adopt all the cute babies to find suitable ones. The question is whether or not a deaf couple who can provide the same means of care and comfort for a child should be treated as "lesser" than a hearing couple. So far, the only argument for this to be the case from you are blanket assertions that it's somehow "unsafe," despite plenty of examples available that children of deaf parents do just fine.
quote:
Granted. This is a big problem that will be there regardless of what you do. Your solution won't make this problem any better. Why would the people who have difficulties of their own wish to raise the most challenging kids? |
Nobody is devoid of "difficulties." Being deaf isn't an insurmountable one. In fact, given all of the healthy, happy and well-adjusted children of deaf couples out there, clearly such difficulties are minor.
Why shouldn't they want to raise challening kids? I see no evidence that a parent having physical difficulties in any way hampers their ability to effectively raise children, even challenging ones.
quote:
Did I say people clamoured to adopt foster kids? No. I referred to the younger kids, since no one specified earlier that the problem was more with adoption, or with foster children. |
Nary a difference, the problem still exists. Singling out younger children to somehow prove that there is no shortage of parents willing to adopt is just defining the terms to suit you instead of addressing the problem. Adoption isn't confined to cute little babies who are perfect in every way.
quote:
I'm not impressed to be sure that this is a viable solution for the problems that you cited, but I agree that he should stay if he's already there. |
That's refreshing, at least. But I don't see on what grounds you can say it isn't "viable." The fact that it's working right now seems to suggest it is plenty viable.
quote:
Edit:
Here's another thing.
So you have children raising parents. |
Yeah, and you can find similar examples of kids having to grow up fast and "raise" their parents across the spectrum. But this is still just one anecdote. Is it universal? No, because there are other anecdotes on those websites that show deaf parents fully in charge and raising their child.
Of course, I don't see how that anecdote is meant to be damning, since the person being quoted didn't grow into a maladjusted sociopath, nor died whilst the parents snoozed through a blaze...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2005 04:32
|
