interesting

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 3, 2003, 1:54 pm

As far as marriages in America are concerned, the participating parties are entering into an incorporated agreement. Same as two companies merging and creating a single corporation, legally. While I have ethical and moral problems with polygamy, legalities notwithstanding, if a group of people of concenting age and sound mind want to engage in polygamy, have at it.

Krimson, the statement that soandso old testament kings were blessed with that many wives is discounted by one thing: according to most christians, the new testament replaced the old testament. The old laws were broken by jesus and new laws were laid down. It's suspiciously close to how mormon laws work, but for christians, it's only been done on a major scale like that, once. If I'm remembering correctly, the old testament is in the bible as a courtesy and to retain the basis for the new beliefs. It's like a preemptive index of supporting titles.

As to gay marriages, I see no problem in this, however, I do agree with Adex in principle that children who grow up in a home with a mother and a father are better citizens, more emotionally balanced, better equipped to handle diversity and capable of healthier relationships. (This is a general statement, there will be exceptions, deal with it.)

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » December 3, 2003, 1:59 pm

Pahreyia wrote:As to gay marriages, I see no problem in this, however, I do agree with Adex in principle that children who grow up in a home with a mother and a father are better citizens, more emotionally balanced, better equipped to handle diversity and capable of healthier relationships. (This is a general statement, there will be exceptions, deal with it.)

And the question gets asked again: how in the world could either of you possibly know this? You have no backing whatsoever. You're just pulling facts out of mid-air that you think will make you look smarter, so stfu already.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 3, 2003, 2:14 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:A kid needs a mom and a dad.

Pahreyia wrote:children who grow up in a home with a mother and a father are better citizens, more emotionally balanced, better equipped to handle diversity and capable of healthier relationships.

A kid needs love and support. If the person/people who raise the kid are good citizens and support diversity and have healthy relationships, there's a good chance the kid will grow up that way too. The child can receive those things that she needs from one or two parents of either sex and any sexual preference, and could just as easily not receive it from your typical churchgoing nuclear family.

In fact, it appears that model hasn't been working very well with a lot of the youth today, and there isn't a statistically large enough sample to say that children of gay couples or some polygamist menagerie wouldn't turn out even better than the progeny of your standard heterosexual couple. I'd certainly bet that their children would at least be better equipped to handle diversity.

You believe that it's necessary for a man and a woman to raise a child because that is the way you were taught was right. I still cannot believe that people so strictly adhere to a publication that is as outdated and outmoded as the Bible, which was written when the earth was flat and we lived in a geocentric solar system and people didn't know about evolution or gravity or medicine or any of the myriad of advances that have come about in the last 2000 years.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » December 3, 2003, 2:24 pm

I disagree.

No matter how well 2 men raise a boy, he's still going to feel different from the majority of kids. Children translate "different" into "bad".

Especially when the other kids are talking about your faggot dad's or dyke mom's. Asking you if you all 3 have sex, etc. The way the child feels is not 100% dependant on the wy the parents raise him. Outside influences can eventually cause the child to eat a bullet.

At my last job, the Vice President was a lesbian. She and her wife had 2 sons. One was 8 (from a previous marriage to a man) the other was a few months old (adopted). I spent a lot of the summer at their house, swimming, hanging out, etc... The 8 year old boy would ask a lot of questions about my father. He also told me that his friends made fun of him because he had two mom's and no father, and he said that they called him gay, because he was being raised by two women.

I felt really bad for the poor kid...and his mom's were two of the nicest, most decent people I have ever met.

noel · Post by **noel** » December 3, 2003, 2:24 pm

I thought a lot about this thread last night, and it occurred to me that I was wrong to say that society is in a decline etc. I think the reality is that society is dealing with a lot of things in public that used to be kept private behind closed doors. Add to that the fact that the news is accessible to everyone 24 hours a day, and overhypes everything, and I think that accounts for the sentiment. I also want to be clear in stating that I do think there's a lot of hope for improvement, and room for improvement.

On the subject of polygamy... How any man could tolerate/survive a marriage with >1 woman is unbeknownst to me.

On the subject of gay marriages, all of the detractors, do me a favor and list the first five criminals/thieves/murderers etc. who had two same sex parents during their upbringing.

Then, off the top of your head list the first 5 with a mother and father, and tell me which list you can fill the fastest.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » December 3, 2003, 2:35 pm

a child doens't need a male and female to raise him in order to be a "good" citizen or human being

Like Sylvus said it takes love and support, even more it takes intelligence, education, understanding, patience and many other qualities. It has nothing to do if the person raising you is a male, female, both or multiples of both. You can be raised by mom and dead and turn up a waste of air, or you can be raised by 2 mommies and a granddad and turn out... the same, or totally opposite.

Religion did set some standards but same or other standards can exist without religion. it's really discouraging to see religious folks who are suppose to be raised as understanding and forgiving people, to try and mold and convert others to a certain way of thinking. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Kids were and always will be picking on "different" kids, it's part of growing up, we need to raise our kids with this understanding that the world and society constantly changes. And it's ok that it does.

Trying to block the changes never worked, did it?

Post by **Sylvus** » December 3, 2003, 2:43 pm

Shaerra wrote:I disagree.

No matter how well 2 men raise a boy, he's still going to feel different from the majority of kids. Children translate "different" into "bad".

Especially when the other kids are talking about your faggot dad's or dyke mom's. Asking you if you all 3 have sex, etc. The way the child feels is not 100% dependant on the wy the parents raise him. Outside influences can eventually cause the child to eat a bullet.

Yes they will feel different, because ignorant people still teach their kids that it is different or bad. So the choices we have are to continue that line of thought, or to change the way we, as a society, think. And along with every other change we've ever made, it's just going to take a precedent being set, and then gradually we'll move toward it being accepted.

Do a google search for Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Jackie Robinson, or any of the hundreds of other people I'm not remembering off the top of my head. At different points in history, almost any group of people that you can think of has been viewed as inadequate by another group of people, it's unfortunate that we aren't past that by now.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 3, 2003, 2:51 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:As to gay marriages, I see no problem in this, however, I do agree with Adex in principle that children who grow up in a home with a mother and a father are better citizens, more emotionally balanced, better equipped to handle diversity and capable of healthier relationships. (This is a general statement, there will be exceptions, deal with it.)
And the question gets asked again: how in the world could either of you possibly know this? You have no backing whatsoever. You're just pulling facts out of mid-air that you think will make you look smarter, so stfu already.

It's Sociology 101. Children raised in two parent households with a mother and a father create bonds and relationships that help instill a foundation with how they interact with people of that sex for the better part of their developmental future. By unbalancing that, children have been observed to be socially unable to deal with people of the sex that they had no parent representing.

Ennia wrote:a child doens't need a male and female to raise him in order to be a "good" citizen or human being

Like Sylvus said it takes love and support, even more it takes intelligence, education, understanding, patience and many other qualities. It has nothing to do if the person raising you is a male, female, both or multiples of both. You can be raised by mom and dead and turn up a waste of air, or you can be raised by 2 mommies and a granddad and turn out... the same, or totally opposite.

I will not argue against that point. However, in speaking in generalizations and non-specific cases children raised in two parent traditional households are better socially equipped to deal with diversity of races and sexes and form better relationships with people.

There are exceptions.. Not all gay couples produce socially inept children. I'm taking my knowledge from a sociology class I took earlier this year, taught by a gay man, where we spent two sessions covering this topic alone.

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » December 3, 2003, 3:06 pm

On the subject of polygamy... How any man could tolerate/survive a marriage with >1 woman is unbeknownst to me.

They marry the girls at 13-14 and fear/guilt them into submission using religion etc.

I have no problem if well educated adults want to practice polygamy, but the way they do it right now is very wrong.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 3, 2003, 3:06 pm

I just thought of another age limit that should be in place. It should be illegal to brainwash kids with Religion until they're 16. Give them a fighting chance to escape it's clutches. It would save a lot of deprogramming and confusion on these boards later as they realize they were duped and didn't really have to sleep with that priest.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 3, 2003, 3:16 pm

The 8 year old boy would ask a lot of questions about my father. He also told me that his friends made fun of him because he had two mom's and no father, and he said that they called him gay, because he was being raised by two women

Kids are evil little fucks who will torment anyone for any reason

For me it was being too tall and too clever. I have 2 parents of opposite sexes who are still married and I was also called gay more than once as a child.
And I turned out ok!

I think you're taking a specific instance and applying your own prejudices to draw a generalization. A lot of kids from single-mother families are also curious about other people's fathers, for instance.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 3, 2003, 3:17 pm

Aranuil: Exactly right.

Shaerra: You're right in that a child with gay parents will probably take some shit from his or her peers. I fail to see how this supports an argument against gay marriage or female equality. My mom married a black man. I take shit for that. Do I think that black men should not be allowed to marry white women in order to prevent me from dealing with ignorance? Fuck no. I'd much rather my mother have the opportunity to marry the man she loves. I'd also like to point out that you completely dropped the "man in charge of the household" and "society is in a decline" points. Does that mean that you concede that you were incorrect, or do you plan to address them again?

Pahreyia: You're confusing "mother and father" with "male and female role models." An abusive father is not going to teach his child to relate well to males. A healthy, positive man who often interacts with the child regardless of parentage will teach the child to relate with males. Children should be presented with role models of both genders. It is often easy for these role models to be parents, but you're confusing ease with necessity.

Further, please drop the "I took a sociology class so I know this shit" attitude. It makes you look worse than you should.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 3, 2003, 3:19 pm

To quote Chris Rock, the end all-be all of sources concerning a mother raising a kid without a father because they don't need a man....You can drive a car witch yo feet, that don't make it a good F#^%in idea.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 3, 2003, 3:27 pm

Sueven wrote:Pahreyia: You're confusing "mother and father" with "male and female role models." An abusive father is not going to teach his child to relate well to males. A healthy, positive man who often interacts with the child regardless of parentage will teach the child to relate with males. Children should be presented with role models of both genders. It is often easy for these role models to be parents, but you're confusing ease with necessity.

Further, please drop the "I took a sociology class so I know this shit" attitude. It makes you look worse than you should.

Yes and no. There is a developmental difference between a parent and a role model. Yes, again, specific exceptions must be made in cases where general statements are presented. /clap /clap you found an exception.

Look, I'm not trying to speak from an area of expertise, I was presenting a source of my information as it was pertainant to the discussion. Like I said, it's Sociology 101.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 3, 2003, 3:32 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'll admit that I don't really know the impetus behind Stalin or Mao killing so many people, did their atheism come into play? Were they killing any people because of those peoples' religious beliefs? If so, I'd chalk some of those up to religion being the motivation.

stalin did the majority of his genociding (is that a word) in the ukraine because he wanted the country for the soviet union but they were fiercely independent. he basically killed (mostly starved, some executed) about ~15 million ukraines. he also killed a whole bunch of russian orthodox jews because he didn't like jews and various other social classes that he didn't think would fit well under communist rule.

mao mostly starved and killed bhuddists because communism dictates putting the state over religion, but like stalin, he pretty much killed or starved anyone he figured wouldn't accept communism very well.

religion was most definitely a factor in a lot of cases, but stalin did most of his killin because he wanted more land and resources for the ussr. it's funny how stalin is responsible for so many more deaths than hitler is. it's fairly ironic that he coined the phrase "history is dictated by the victors" long before the stories of his brutal genocides became common knowledge.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 3, 2003, 4:13 pm

I would argue that my statement, "children are best served by having postive male and female role models," is the generalization, and your statement, which appears to be (and correct me if this is a mischaracterization) "mothers and fathers can provide positive male and female role models" is the exception.

I would entirely classify it as an exception, since exception implies rarity, but certainly a part of a greater whole.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 3, 2003, 4:43 pm

Aranuil wrote:On the subject of gay marriages, all of the detractors, do me a favor and list the first five criminals/thieves/murderers etc. who had two same sex parents during their upbringing.

Then, off the top of your head list the first 5 with a mother and father, and tell me which list you can fill the fastest.

Here is where your problem lies. You are giving a stringent qualifier where those of us that actually would argue against gay marriage are using a much broader qualifier. You say that gay parents can be good parents. I would say that yes they could be good parents but bad role models and not be able to fully prepare a child to be able to adequately deal with the real world today.

What those of us (a majority at least) who oppose gay marriage adhere to is that upbringing a child outside the ideal of the traditional 2 hetero parent homes is a major factor in behavioral problems. It is not just gay marriage we are opposed to.....it would go way beyond that. The gay marriage is just the hot topic at the moment and would pave the way for just about any non-traditional marriages.

Now having said that, change your question to being able to list 5 serious criminals who did not grow up in a traditional 2-parent home vs the traditional home upbringing and see how fast your question can be answered both ways.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » December 3, 2003, 4:49 pm

why are gay parents bad role models?

noel · Post by **noel** » December 3, 2003, 4:51 pm

The bottom line is that a child growing up in a home with parents that care about him, teach him good values, and take an active role in the childs upbringing will be better off than one that isn't. Sexes of the parents be damned.

The point I was trying to making is that a child growing up in a family environment with a mother and father is not a guarantee of anything at all.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 3, 2003, 5:54 pm

Sueven wrote:I would argue that my statement, "children are best served by having postive male and female role models," is the generalization, and your statement, which appears to be (and correct me if this is a mischaracterization) "mothers and fathers can provide positive male and female role models" is the exception.

I would entirely classify it as an exception, since exception implies rarity, but certainly a part of a greater whole.

There is a distinct difference between a role model and a parent. Both can influence the development of a child, however, there is a bond between parents and their children that role models can not replicate.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » December 3, 2003, 6:24 pm

What those of us (a majority at least) who oppose gay marriage adhere to is that upbringing a child outside the ideal of the traditional 2 hetero parent homes is a major factor in behavioral problems.

What about a child being raised by a single mother? Perhaps its not as good of an environment to be raised in as a two parent household (my personal inclination is that in general it probably isn't). However, it remains perfectly legal. For that matter, there is nothing to currently stop two people of the same gender, or one man and four women, or whatever other combination of consenting adults to live together, have sex, and raise children (the same sex couples will need some outside help in the realm of child creation, unless they have already had one from a previous relationship). If they find a willing religous institution they could even have a marriage ceremony and consider themself married in that faith. What they can't currently do is enter into a marriage license as defined by the government. Which for the most part defines certain base contractual assumptions about their shared properties, inheritance and also is viewed as a separate status by the governement regarding taxes and social programs. Personally, I would just as soon the government drop the differentiation regarding taxes etc. (in many cases this would actually help married couples). I also think that if a same sex couple, or more than two people want to enter into the contractual aspect in the government eyes, they should be allowed to.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » December 3, 2003, 7:39 pm

why are gay parents bad role models?

I think what the people are saying is that in their opinions gay parents won't make their children conform to all of societies norms, since according to them gay parents themselves don't conform to the norms.

While this may be true since a child of a gay couple will probably not engage in homophobic behavior like calling other kids gay and such I don't think that it affects the child’s views on what is morally right and wrong. That is affected more by the character of the parents than by their sexual orientation. However, this again is going in a circle since the people who do not support gay marriage believe that gay people are inherently amoral without looking at the person's character.

Personally I think there should be a restriction put on all marriages, if the person's IQ is not over 145 then they should not be allowed to marry or reproduce

. Yes that last passage was sarcasm.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » December 3, 2003, 8:22 pm

Say what you want about religion, but it's the radicals who are screaming about their personal freedoms who "feel free" to do whatever they want without fear of retribution. It is that fear that keeps that average Joe from doing whatever the hell he wants, like stealing a car and mowing down a bunch of people in a park.

You are fucking delusional. Fear is the worst possible way to dictate morality to a society. The thing that keeps average Joe from being a criminal should be his understanding of morality, not his fear of the consequences of immorality. If average joe needs religion to keep him from being a detriment to society then he is far from average.

The farther society gets from religion, the worse off society is. So Kyoukan tries to call attention to herself by calling them "stupid morons that need to be euthanized", but in reality, she HAS to know that religion = structure, and without structure, there is nothing to prevent someone from just walking up and punching her in the face.

It is law and not religion that gives society structure and order. Religion is simply not the same as morality. While I think that religion is often correct in it's moral teachings, there are plenty of instances where religion is completely amoral. In fact, in some societies those instances carry so much weight that in the end, religion becomes a detriment to them.

You are way too naive to realize this, and in the future it will be your kids who make fun of the kid with gay parents, thus proving my point.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » December 3, 2003, 8:23 pm

Shaerra wrote:Especially when the other kids are talking about your faggot dad's or dyke mom's. Asking you if you all 3 have sex, etc.

And behavior like that is taught to children by their bigoted parents. And most of those antagonizing children are probably from whole, male/female married homes.

Shaerra wrote:At my last job, the Vice President was a lesbian. She and her wife had 2 sons. One was 8 (from a previous marriage to a man) the other was a few months old (adopted). I spent a lot of the summer at their house, swimming, hanging out, etc... The 8 year old boy would ask a lot of questions about my father. He also told me that his friends made fun of him because he had two mom's and no father, and he said that they called him gay, because he was being raised by two women.

I felt really bad for the poor kid...and his mom's were two of the nicest, most decent people I have ever met.

Let me see if I'm inferring this correctly. Using this example, you're against gay marriage, because society can't accept them, not because gay marriages caused messed up children, right?

Like Tanc I was ridiculed as a child too. I was largely taller than everyone during the growing up phases of life. I was smart, I was in high school band, and I just liked to be different in general. That's life. And like I said above, that behavior of belittling everyone different from you is generally handed down from your past generations. The responsibility of changing that lies with the parents. Sadly, most people shrug a lot of the responsibility of parenting it seems.

The sex, or number of parents I guess...doesn't matter. The quality does.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 3, 2003, 8:30 pm

Truant took care of Shaerra.

Pahreyia: I will agree with you that a loving, healthy, mother-father family is probably the ideal situation for a child to grow up in. However, I feel that the incidences of ideal two parent families is exceedingly low. As has been pointed out, around half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of those that do not are certainly not healthy by any stretch of the imagination. If a gay couple wants children, they need to make a serious effort to have them, through surrogate motherhood, adoption, or whatever. This indicates that the couple wants and is ready for children, which is more than can be said for many heterosexual couples. This also means that I cannot accept the idea that, in general, heterosexuals will raise better adjusted children than homosexuals: homosexual child rearing is planned more often than heterosexual.

So I will agree that the best situation for a child, if even for the most miniscule of reasons, is probably in a heterosexual family. I just think that this ideal situation is so rare as to be negligible and irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or adoption.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 3, 2003, 8:34 pm

Sueven, you make several good points. While we may not agree on the minor details, I find no fault in your argument worth arguing. Chalk up an agreement.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 3, 2003, 8:45 pm

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 3, 2003, 9:11 pm

Truant wrote: I was smart, I was in high school band, and I just liked to be different in general.

I have to reiterate what band boy said. The reason a kid with gay parents has it rough is due to the kids with a male and female parent teaching their children to hate anyone with a different lifestyle than their own.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » December 3, 2003, 10:38 pm

Damn there are a lot of good ideas in this thread.

I think many people are correct. I do think that a child being influenced by two stable, hardworking, well adjusted male and female couple will be better adjusted to deal with society, that to me would be basic logic or Socology 101.

Now many people have made the point, as Winnow just did that it would be better to have two gay parents that two hetro's who taught them to hate... I agree with that, makes sense (see "well-adjusted" above).

In regards to religion I think you should exposes your children as early as possible to your beliefs. That continuity is one thing that helps build a family. BUT I also think you need to teach your kids to THINK and reason. I was taught to question and did a lot of scientific research and well as a lot of Philosophy classes. For years I didn't really attend Church, I read and studied but thought most "Christians" were missing the whole point. There came a time when I had to make some choices on what I believed and I did that. Some of them are a difficult leap for me, but that is what failth is for. I still believe most "Christians" have missed the point but maybe someday I can put forth some of my ideas for others to read, who knows. I do know that I will always be searching for the Truth with a capital T and I'm sure throughout my life different events will mold and shape those views I call my own. THAT is what I want for my son. I want him to think through, question and understand what he believes. My job is to first teach him what I believe, what others believe and how to analyze. The rest will be up to him.

I think if we focused more on increasing our understanding and teaching our children rather than shoving whatever beliefs you have (religious or non religous) the world would be a better place.

Marb

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » December 4, 2003, 10:23 am

Kids are gonna get made fun of whether their parents are gay or not. If they aren't gay, there's always something else thats gonna get poked fun at. I don't think its the same sex people raising kids that messes up the kids childhood; its the other assholes pointing out to their kids the Evils of another being raised by Faggots and Dykes.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2003, 10:25 am

Maybe everyone who was raised by two heterosexual parents should list what qualities led them to be picked on in school.

For me, I was a fast runner, faster than anyone in school, by a lot. I was repeatedly picked on by people who would say that my father must be black. This happened from when I was in about second grade all the way until I went to a private high school where noone really knew me. Having same-sex parents may just give kids additional ammunition, but they will find something to pick on if they're raised to be ignorant.

It all worked out in the end. There I was a captain of the track team for four seasons and still have records that remain unbroken to this day (16 years now, oofa). It also got me a free tuition to college

.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 4, 2003, 11:17 am

SO, is your father black?

My Highschool years were crazy too, being black and the fastest freestyle swimmer on the swim team always had me in a weird spotlight. I still remember my swim coach asking me if I knew how to swim on first day of tryouts, heh. I never did get made fun of though, so that made it a little easier, people were just generally shocked. As my boot camp company commander said, god bless his redneck soul, *there's not many swimming pools in the inner city*

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 4, 2003, 11:20 am

Junior high and high school are a social shark pool. Doesn't matter what kind of family you come from, you are gonna get razzed for something. I was picked on for being too tall, having bad skin, not wearing the right clothes, etc.

I don't really have a problem with a gay couple getting married. As much protesting as I hear on the subject, I can't help but think that a legitimate and formalized relationship between two people beats the hell out of simply living together.

Polygamy is a completely different subject for the financial and legal headaches multiple spouses cause.

Whoever came up with the idea that gay marriage=polygamy or that allowing same sex couple to wed gives you the right to marry your favorite cucumber is very light in the logic loafers. Lousy argument.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 4, 2003, 1:39 pm

Chidoro vs Krimson: 100 yard dash for 10K VVs!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » December 4, 2003, 2:00 pm

*crosses finish line* I win, even though I was never on a track team, he sucks!

Rematch on a 50 yard freestyle in the pool?

Post by **Sylvus** » December 4, 2003, 2:40 pm

I never really got picked on in school. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to all those people I picked on though. I have this recurring nightmare of someone having my name on a list of people to kill somewhere, much like Steve Buscemi's character in Billy Madison.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 4, 2003, 3:11 pm

Sylvus wrote:I never really got picked on in school. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to all those people I picked on though. I have this recurring nightmare of someone having my name on a list of people to kill somewhere, much like Steve Buscemi's character in Billy Madison.

Did your parents have a "My son beat up your honor student" bumpersticker?

A sylvus victim!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 4, 2003, 3:53 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Shae, seriously, this whole, "woman's place is in the home" thing, is humorous at times, but ignorant as hell when you're serious. I'm really sorry that your employment ambitions aren't set very high, but you are, rapidly, becoming the anomaly, not the other way around.

You are sorry her employment ambitions are not set very high?
How about her ambitions (implied) to raise a family and look after the household etc.
Your statement by its very nature states that a woman who stays home and looks after the kids and the household is also a woman who should be pitied for not having lofty goals and ambitions.

I can think of no higher calling than that of a mother and wife. If the economics of todays society were different we would have more stay at home moms and/or dads. Would this lead to better children and higher moral standards, you bet it would.

Off topic I know but the above statement pissed me off.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 4, 2003, 4:18 pm

Atokal wrote:
Chidoro wrote: I can think of no higher calling than that of a mother and wife. If the economics of todays society were different we would have more stay at home moms and/or dads. Would this lead to better children and higher moral standards, you bet it would.

Off topic I know but the above statement pissed me off.

Test tube babies and robot nanny's are all we need. In the future, hopefully you can opt for speed growing your kids in test tubes up to the age of 18 so you can boot them out of the house in case the moral/education package they were programmed with was faulty.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » December 4, 2003, 4:46 pm

The economics of today are fine. You just have too many people who think they have to have everything, which is why both parents have to work. If more parents decided that they didn't need a 55'' TV, along with a TV in every room, etc... then you would have much fewer people in a situation where both parents have to work to keep the family up.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » December 4, 2003, 4:48 pm

ROFL this cracked me up Winnow

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 4, 2003, 4:50 pm

I think you are overstating the position, Toke. I know that's what this board encourages, but...

There is nothing wrong with Shaerra staying home if that what she chooses to do. Her argument above was that all women should stay at home, regardless of ambition.

After kids enter school, that's a large block of time spent in front of the TV with the soaps. Any woman who chooses to do more has my deepest respect.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 4, 2003, 4:52 pm

Chidoro wrote:Maybe everyone who was raised by two heterosexual parents should list what qualities led them to be picked on in school.

I never got picked on that I can recall, and didn't bother other people either for that matter.

It went on but I didn't participate in it, I always felt bad for the people getting the abuse. I hear what my kids talk about from high school, what a pack of animals. It's way worse than it was when I was a kid, and the parents concerned can't\won't do anything about it.

Overall I think it's a failure of people being taught to take personal responsibility for their own actions at a young age. Yes it's a gross simplification, but it's very close to the root of the problem. As a society, we move farther and farther from that goal all the time.

Laws and religious teachings are not a deterent to people who don't respect them, and by extension other people. You can't legislate decency or morality, that's going to come from your upbringing. Sometimes later in life from a personal crisis of some sort as well, though not as often it seems.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 4, 2003, 4:55 pm

Aab,

I think the biggest problem today is that we as adults are no longer allowed to apply peer pressure to other adults in order to maintain a standard of behavior.

The kids do what they are taught to do, either actively or by omission.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 4, 2003, 5:44 pm

I agree, but you have to be in an enviroment where peer pressue is possible for it to happen. In our suburban "distributed" society, it doesn't work anymore.

Kids see a lot more than people give them credit for, and it makes an impression. Disobeying traffic laws, heavy drinking, drug use, promiscuity\cheating, cheating on taxes, etc.. are all pretty obvious to a child and show it's acceptable behavior for laws\societal norms to be ignored.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » December 4, 2003, 6:30 pm

That's a good point. Communities don't gather much anymore, so I guess the effects of peer pressure aren't felt very often.

Hmm...

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2003, 6:40 pm

Atokal wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Shae, seriously, this whole, "woman's place is in the home" thing, is humorous at times, but ignorant as hell when you're serious. I'm really sorry that your employment ambitions aren't set very high, but you are, rapidly, becoming the anomaly, not the other way around.
You are sorry her employment ambitions are not set very high?
How about her ambitions (implied) to raise a family and look after the household etc.
Your statement by its very nature states that a woman who stays home and looks after the kids and the household is also a woman who should be pitied for not having lofty goals and ambitions.

I can think of no higher calling than that of a mother and wife. If the economics of todays society were different we would have more stay at home moms and/or dads. Would this lead to better children and higher moral standards, you bet it would.

Off topic I know but the above statement pissed me off.

Why would it piss you off, because you feel women shouldn't have the outlet to succeed in a career if they choose to as Shae suggests?

I guess I shouldn't expect any more from you, regardless of how much I try.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 4, 2003, 6:53 pm

Kargyle wrote:The economics of today are fine. You just have too many people who think they have to have everything, which is why both parents have to work. If more parents decided that they didn't need a 55'' TV, along with a TV in every room, etc... then you would have much fewer people in a situation where both parents have to work to keep the family up.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes: maybe they want to keep up w/ the Joneses. No: the woman of the family takes pride in her career and doesn't want to leave that part of her life behind. Whether some people feel that's a recipe of family disaster is debatable. I know just as many people who do just fine accomplishing it as people who are failing miserably at it. The latter, typically, occurs if there's something else that blocks the relationship besides two parents who work.

It's funny, but as kids, you really don't have a sense of what being "wealthy" really is short of the extreme. It's usually benchmarked against their own life, however humble that foundation is.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » December 4, 2003, 7:15 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Atokal wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Shae, seriously, this whole, "woman's place is in the home" thing, is humorous at times, but ignorant as hell when you're serious. I'm really sorry that your employment ambitions aren't set very high, but you are, rapidly, becoming the anomaly, not the other way around.
You are sorry her employment ambitions are not set very high?
How about her ambitions (implied) to raise a family and look after the household etc.
Your statement by its very nature states that a woman who stays home and looks after the kids and the household is also a woman who should be pitied for not having lofty goals and ambitions.

I can think of no higher calling than that of a mother and wife. If the economics of todays society were different we would have more stay at home moms and/or dads. Would this lead to better children and higher moral standards, you bet it would.

Off topic I know but the above statement pissed me off.

Why would it piss you off, because you feel women shouldn't have the outlet to succeed in a career if they choose to as Shae suggests?

I guess I shouldn't expect any more from you, regardless of how much I try.

I think you missed his point completely. He wasn't saying that women shouldn't have a successful career. He was merely saying that he didn't like how Shae seemed to imply that women's place was in a home. And he commented that stay at home wives/mothers was a noble calling. I see nothing chauvaistic or out of line in what he said. Perhaps you just misinterpreted his post.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » December 4, 2003, 8:00 pm

Empowerment means having the power to make a choice. That is what my post was about as well.

There is nothing wrong with someone working or staying home, both are need and noble. I think women should be given the facts and the choice to do what they feel is right.

Marb