Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (423559)	7/6/2003 6:41:17 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"When medicine takes the ovum from a lesbian, it always pairs the ovum with the material contributions of a man, not with a lesbian lover’s" This is not the issue. Yes, the fact is that all children come from a contribution from a man and a woman. However, it is not a requirement that the contribution come from the same parents. There are obviously many examples of parents that are not biological parents: adoptions, second marriages, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, etc. You cannot say that the fact that the biological contribution does not come from the parents is a reason to not consider it a valid family unit. "You claim knowledge of same-sex “families” that are "indistinguishable" from traditional families except that they have two mothers or two fathers. You claim an inability to distinguish between a family with a mom and dad, and one with two fathers. Your blindness here is manifest and most lamentable. After all, nature has never once produced a two father “family,” but she produces traditional families every single minute of every single day" Nature has never produced a single parent family (ok, well, some of us believe it did once :) By your argument, single parent families are also not 'families', and the word can only apply to heterosexual male/female pairings. "Your confusion here is due to the fact that, unlike relationships between humans and animals, with homosexuality the participants involved are all human. This disallows your ability to see that despite their being human, nature’s logic demands they combine in a specific way such that the combination itself becomes a member of the human set. If that combination fails to conform to the demands of nature, then it is in no way organically attached to humanity. The very combination of humans itself becomes yet another logical object within the human family, and the character of that object is such that it produces other objects of the same essential sort. Homosexuality has no part of this human structural definition at all. It is foreign to it." The same was thought for centuries as far as the role of the man and woman. The role of the man was protector and food provider, whereas the woman was the nurturer and raiser of children. These roles have changed and expanded greatly in the last century. Woman can now be the protector and provider, whereas men are free to be the primary raiser of the children. Some would argue that this arrangement is also 'not natural', and in fact there is a movement to "restore" the family unit back to it's "natural" state. Which is fine for those who wish to do so, as long as they don't impose that definition on others. Similarly, your argument that 'unnatural' biological relationships are somehow untenable family units is flawed, both logically and by example. Logically, we see that two women or two men are quite capable of raising children, providing both necessities and nuturing. By example, we see many same-sex couples lovingly raising good, moral kids (I know a few myself). The 'unnatural' issue is one that does not affect their family unit at all, therefore there are no adverse consequences of such an arrangement (unless you want to fall back on the 'morality' argument, which I doubt). In fact, you could make an argument that those who oppose same sex marriages are, in fact, penalize both the couples and their children by denying them the rights afforded to other 'legally' married couples. Therefore, this stance of yours ends up hurting families and children who will, thanks to the Supreme Court, continue to raise children the best they know how.