Gentoo

I believe that under certain circumstances, you should be responsible for taking care of another human. Children are weak and vulnerable, incapable of taking care of themselves and likely to suffer from serious physical and mental issues in the absence of being properly raised. Given that their introduction to the world is a direct result of your actions, you should be ethically and legally responsible for their care until they reach a reasonable point where they can sustain themselves - unless someone offers to graciously shoulder that burden for you. No, I do not believe your agency, freedom, or happiness is more important than the suffering you will inflict on your own offsprings behalf due to your own negligence.

Just to reiterate, you don't believe that you should be responsible for taking care of another human you bring into the world, even if nobody else will?

So you're not obligated to because you can give it up to the state? Or if you lived in a time where that luxury didn't exist could you leave it in an alley for instance?

In the same way that a parents are responsible for a child after birth (not slavery, you're free not to have kids), the logic could be extended that parents are responsible for a child after conception, as it's still a human life. Do you not believe parents are responsible for their children after birth?

That's not a strawman, you two obviously have a fundamental difference in your understanding of the situation at hand and he's not going to have his values eroded by semantics and word games. No matter how long you're blog is, I'm not going to concede that there is an acceptable circumstance to throw toddlers off of buildings, it's not a strawman for me to say that's murder and he seems to have the same feelings about abortions. Doesn't mean he's wrong, it means you two can't have a conversation about it.

Neither can actual children (that's why we have laws about consent) or people with mental deficiencies, hence why we need laws to protect them. Nobody's forcing anyone to reproduce, it just prevents those having a pregnancy from killing the kid. This is also just a weak line of thinking, should we go around killing every firstborn because America has bad healthcare? lol. This is a bit of a tangent but I'm curious if you feel the government has a responsibility to take care of people. If so, why do you feel that way? Dude, what? Conservatives have literally been playing the try miserably to hold them back game for decades, are you getting a taste of what it feels like when someone erodes one of your core values or something?

Post your opinion, we're having an on topic discussion (like the opposite of derailing)

I believe he's referring to quality of life rather than protection thereof, unless he is actually trying to make that case

The mother does, the child does not - that's the conversation if you haven't been following, as a smaller community, the state can determine which individuals need to have their rights protected accordingly... Seems significantly more appropriate than trying to legitimize the outcome that aligns with your views despite it's significantly less representative approach, no?

Doesn't it seem backwards to have something upheld by the federal government that people have no say in and can't be overrode by votes? I would think deferring things to the system that gives individuals the most say would be closest to what you're looking for if you believe what you say.

On a more serious note, it's pretty obvious that this isn't something established or settled unanimously. I'd say it's pretty reasonable to allow states to determine this, and it's better than an outright ban. If it's that important to you, you can always move. If you can't afford to move, try jerking off instead of engaging in such risky behavior

It happened This is no longer considered a constitutionally protected right for the time being Serious question, what are you going to do about it?

As someone who's had to speak at a handful of events, it's always useful to have something like this, especially on such short notice as he's speaking every few days. My dad used to be a Master of Ceremonies and it was his job to write stuff like this for every event so people didn't look foolish. I would like to get a POV shot of his teleprompters though, it's very obvious that this guy is usually reading off of them word for word.

I think that's the same as saying American cities are diverse because they have a bunch of brown people when everyone is collectively essentially living under the same culture, way of life, hivemind apart from the music they listen to and food they eat at home. You have to give people and communities the agency to operate and carry out their way of life if you won't diversity to exist in any meaningful extent - this isn't about gay people, it's about cultures in general, you don't get to stick your fingers in other lies and cherry pick what is and isn't acceptable outside of the boundaries of the law. I mentioned Christianity in this thread but plenty of other cultures have a norm of keeping this from the public eye such as 90% of non-first-world countries, the military, Islam, etc. Do you think the militaries long standing policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" is fear and anger? More than half those dudes are desert gay, are they afraid of themselves? You mentioned the government discerning who is and isn't fit to parent so I assumed that's what you were alluding to suggesting. If it's not it seems you're just looking at other cultures and trying to tell them they're wrong and shouldn't be doing that. Maybe they are, that's not going to stop them from doing it within the confines of the law. It's not, I assume you know what I'm talking about and are just baiting. But while on the topic of drag shows, pride parades and all that, I'm curious what you think about this. Is publicly displaying sex toys in public where you know impressionable children will be appropriate? What motivates this sort of behavior, what does it do for the movement? I hope you have something more insightful to say than 'they've probably heard about sex from their friends at this point so why not give them the whole charade'.

This is definitely a fringe opinion, but I think that where the line is drawn should be a lot more lenient in my opinion than where you might consider appropriate. I think as far as things are concerned, as long as the parents are able to care for the child's basic physical needs (affection, nutrition, etc.) and doesn't show clear signs of abuse or ill intent in raising their children, nobody else needs to or should get involved. Is it possible that they might teach them things that aren't right? Sure. Who's to say that that's not going to happen should anyone else be involved? Do we as a society always know what's right? Does the state know what's right? Despite what I may have grown up thinking or been taught at home, I ran into different ideas and perspectives with other children or being taught at school throughout my childhood - that's what socialization is. I can say not all of those ideas were right. We were taught things about math, science, and history that weren't true. I think the bottom line is that as long as kids grow up a loving family, they'll do alright it in life. I think parents should have the ability to raise, shelter, protect and teach their kids. I think cultures should be able to exist and propagate. Religion should be protected. The whole reason we're here in the first place is because of the diversity of of ideas we have anyways. Do you think that's going to propagate in a healthy way of you start saying the state has the supreme authority on what's right and true and they can take your kids if you don't engrain that in them? I don't see collectivism as an immediate justification to dispense with personal freedoms. I'm getting really tired so I'm gonna wrap this up, I'll most likely find some time tomorrow to expound upon this but just quick notes for now. I think 'accepting' is a poor word to use and sets the standard further than what most people actually think or expect. 'Tolerate' comes off as a bit harsh, but I think more of 'indefference' is the most you should expect or require of people. If you'd like to explain what the word means to you and why you chose it go ahead. I think tribalism is alive and well and something deeply engrained in people's minds. I think there's an inevitability of it and you can see it in all of the people around you. There's always going to be in groups and put groups. More often than not, most people aren't even 'tolerant' or 'indifferent' to those outgroups. Today it takes many forms - class, culture, political alignment, friend group, gang affiliation, whatever. The way people act and talk about these groups tells you all you need to know about the existence of it. Eat the rich, these people shouldn't be able to talk, be able to vote. People have an deep need to know who they are with and who they are not with. I genuinely think it is impossible to do away with this seemingly biological mechanism in people. People literally get off thinking they are sticking it to the other side or scoring for the team - look at how people in any of these threads behave. What important is that people understand how to treat others, not making sure that they are educated on the specifics of what groups exist and why. I understand that it's controversial to say this, but I'm sure you understand I'm not saying this with ill intent. There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to avoid exposing their children to certain aspects of that community in it's current state - religious and bigoted dispositions aside. Oversexualization, animosity, the dysphoria and confusion in the trans and other parts of the community (regardless of your opinion, the norm has changed drastically over the last 5-10 years, it's obvious that it's not clear what's 'true' and what isn't even to them, what's healthy for kids, what medical intervention is healthy and appropriate). So long as parents are loving and understanding, kids are going to grow up and learn who they are much more effectively with the support of their community than reading what some groomer tells them they think online. Lastly, hiding things from your kids does not mean they are going to grow up hating it. If you teach your kids to respect and understand others, that's all they need to know. I saw someone with what I assume to be Botox horns the other day at work. Do you know what I did? I served them their food and told them to have a nice day.

Your kids are going to grow up and have sex one day so why keep them waiting, what are you gonna delay the inevitable? I'll admit to being a but facetious with most of my posts but this line of thinking is terrible. Because something is prevalent or normalized is no reason to assume that you can't seek to shelter your children or hope for something better. Obviously that doesn't necessarily apply to this particular situation but it's still a bad way to go about rationalizing things in general.

I'm glad you have the answers to where the universe came from. Maybe some day you can write a book about it and the rest of us can catch up! Let's what what? Kids raised by single parents are worse off than those raised by those with two virtually unilaterally so I'm not sure where you're coming from. I don't think either of us are qualified to determine whether same sex parents are better or worse at parenting than a traditional family, I don't think anyone would have the nuts or be dumb enough to fund that sort of research either. To insinuate that there are not large personality and temperamental differences between men and women that could lead to different outcomes in these types of couples raising kids is ridiculous. I wouldn't assume otherwise for someone with a reasonable amount of expendable income, who was able to go to school and pursue something they're passionate about, and who's life I assume to be free of monumental tragedy at the moment. Unfortunately, not everyone is so fortunate.

I'm not implying you're close minded for believing that, but for believing that it's completely hateful or bigoted for someone to believe the contrary. Firstly, the religious perspective is literally that "God said this, it's been believed and practiced for thousands of years" you don't have to hate anyone or find them disgusting to believe that something is wrong because "God said so". Not the same as saying it shouldn't be allowed, just that they don't want to show it to their children. Secondly, it's not immediately obvious to everyone that two people fundamentally incapable of creating children are equipped or should have the right to raise children. In the same way, it's not immediately obvious to the state that young adults should be able to raise older children or that single males should be able to raise children at all. Assuming they believe and practice the belief, they can't do that either. What motivates it is that they believe that "God said so", simple as. Apparently "God also said to love thy neighbor and not hate sinners" which seems pretty contrary to hate. Go do something else. You're completely incapable of fathoming that people are capable of thinking that something is wrong for religious or other rationalized reasons without hating those that participate in it. You're never going to convince anyone of anything with that rhetoric and stereotyping. Go progress society all you want, fwiw I'd take the 1500s over the 2000s any day. I'll take dying of tuberculosis at 30 if it means I can live a meaningful life free of Schumpeter's socialism and inevitable nihilism any day.

Here you are clinging to just as much dogma and closed mindedness as those you accuse LOL Being sexually attracted to certain people would put you under a specific group of people, choosing to seek out a partner and raise children with them would not - that's a lifestyle choice. It doesn't take fear, disgust or hate to say that you don't believe in validating or normalizing that lifestyle.

As mentioned in jazzys post, bigotry applies specifically to a group of people - not a lifestyle choice. Even still, if it's religiously founded, you can't argue it as unreasonable, assuming you respect people's right to believe and practice religion that is.

Yeah my issue with how you argue things is that you strawman things as hard as possible and then tend to get overly emotional about it like dropping a bunch of profanity and calling people retards is going to convince anyone of anything. I mean sure if you just want everyone to know how right you are for believing everything that's commonly accepted then just pointing back to the fact that it's commonly accepted any time someone asks you to justify it, go for it I guess. For whatever reason, it seems a lot of parents don't want to show their kids a gay couple raising kids, and like you said, Disney obviously knows this and hasn't had it in their movies for decades and didn't bother putting it in any marketing material or otherwise telling people. Obviously anyone who doesn't want to show that to their kids is going to see it as a sleight - it probably was. If you want to, you can keep wasting everyone's time by spazzing out, or you could explain what is wrong with parents not wanting to show a particular lifestyle choice (not group of people) to their children - so long as they are not actively promoting hate?

We're not talking about a warning or people crying. We're talking about wether or not it's bigoted or unethical to not care for showing your kids things seems like you have some pent up aggression towards someone that only exists in your head The traditionalist perspective is literally just "this worked for me and my parents and my parents parents to have a healthy and meaningful life - why not do it or introduce it to my kids instead of letting them be raised by a world full of so many people that seem lost, confused, and hurt?" https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/December-2016/The-Mental-Health-Benefits-of-Religion-Spiritual#:~:text=Religion gives people something to,rates%2C alcoholism and drug use. Seems to be widely proven that it does help people with accomplishing that goal, maybe you need to be a bit bigoted to be mentally healthy or maybe it's just an unfortunate side effect or dogmatism (it is), either way, seems like a worthwhile trade of for people.

Are they telling their children it's evil and bad or just not showing it to them? Amish don't introduce their children to modern technology until they're 18, is that bigotry? Christians believe that sex is meant for procreation and to strengthen the relationship between a married man and woman, that sexual urges outside of traditional marriage (homosexual or otherwise) should be met with chastity - reducing libido. Are they bigots? (I'm sure you'll say yes) Should they not be free to believe in and practice their religion? It's ridiculous to assert that not showing things to their kids is somehow bigoted as if someone who isn't exposed to and sees homosexuality as normalized by the time they grow up might risk becoming homophobic because they've never seen a gay person before.

No, it's not