What have you watched recently?

[cribble]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Trathena=hero.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: What have you watched recently?

i finally watched murderball last night. well, i 'watched' it while indulging in 'other' activities. any way, it intrigued me enough that i hope they televise wheelchair rugby at the olympics, but i would actually hate to watch the olympics--what a conundrum. do i support the use of public spectacles such as sports that attempts to distract the audiences from gross injustices performed by both the host nation and the visiting nation, while concomitantly supporting nothing more than glorified geopolitical events? we have not gone far from the roman coliseum. but these gladiators are in wheelchairs! and they play a dangerous form of rugby!

i also saw hancock recently, not that impressed. don't want to say too much to give stuff away.

wall-e was good.

[cribble]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Oh, i'm so looking forward to wall-e. I hear the main characters have no 'real' dialog whatsoever... which is interesting. Also, it's not another "funny animal with [famous person] personality".

[Trathena]

Re: What have you watched recently?

do i support the use of public spectacles such as sports that attempts to distract the audiences from gross injustices performed by both the host nation and the visiting nation, while concomitantly supporting nothing more than glorified geopolitical events? we have not gone far from the roman coliseum.

lol! I never thought I'd meet someone else who thought about the Olympics the same way I do. What a pleasure you are, Auto!

what a conundrum.

Check out what I'm listening to right now! Uncanny!

----------------
Listening to: Wolf & Cub - Conundrum

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: What have you watched recently?

lol! I never thought I'd meet someone else who thought about the Olympics the same way I do. What a pleasure you are, Auto!

Check out what I'm listening to right now! Uncanny!

i pretty much detest the olympics. and that is uncanny!



oh, i forgot: i also saw the new indiana jones. terrible. oh my god, so terrible, and a tad racist.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: What have you watched recently?

This is hysterical, because out of the entire post, that is the only paragraph with which I disagree with everything. :-)

Why?

[Trathena]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Why?

Oh gosh. Well . . . OK, let's discuss this, but first I must keep my promise to Kyle.

Recently, I've watched MTV2's Saturday Rock the Deuce. MGMT was showing their playlist. Those guys are cute and sweet. They pretty much picked all 90s grunge and alternative, just like most modern bands do. It's the reason I like the show. I also just watched my husband clean out the kitty litter box, wash his hand, give me a kiss, and then make himself a scotch and water.

OK, I'm leaving out what the scholars say and getting right to Gnomad's thoughts.

I believe gender is a revealed biological fact. Sexual dimorphism does not begin and end in reproductive body parts, it is evident in brain substance.

I was wrong; I agree with this. Hmm. I mean, transgendered folks say this too, and they're pretty good experts on gender identity. So there. Right off the bat, I'm revealed to be full of shit.

The most loving man cannot teach a girl how to be a woman. The most loving woman cannot teach a boy how to be a man.

I just simply disagree here. To me, this doesn't give thoughtful, loving parents (both men and women) enough credit. I know what a woman is and I know what a man is (and isn't). I don't need a penis (or to identify as male) to teach a boy how to grow up to be a confident, intelligent, giving, loving, responsible, kind, caring human being.

Yes, I'm simply speaking for myself, but what else can I do? I know there are other smart, educated, loving people out there raising kids. Most of them are straight. And I know there are ignorant, stupid, simpletons out there raising kids too. Most of them are straight.

As far as masculinity and femininity go, I know what these are too, and it's next to impossible to force adolescents to be what they aren't. Many, many men and women screw up their sons and daughters every day trying to make them into cookie-cutter stereotypes instead of letting their kids work out their own personalities. My own father had no idea what a real man is or should be. Same with my mom and being the right kind of "girl."

A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman.

I don't understand why not. A gay man who knows how to love and care for other human beings will teach his son how to love and care for other human beings. All women are different anyway. What I want and expect from my spouse is 180 degrees different than what my own sisters want and expect from their husbands. Same with every one of my female acquaintances.

A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband.

I don't understand why not. How about just teaching her daughter how to love, period? A responsible lesbian mother will teach her daughter to look for a guy who will respect her, treat her well, protect her, and love her. Just like a responsible straight mother will.

If we're talking about sex here, well, I've been with women, and we know what cocks are for, and we know how to use them when we want to include them in our lovemaking.

And, seriously, Dan Savage should debunk any myth that gay men don't know how to sexually please a woman.

Moreover, how many kids learn about sex on the playground because their stupid, useless, repressed straight parents won't talk about it with them? Far too many. It's common knowledge that homosexuals--as a rule, and once they come out--aren't as repressed as straight people.

The love of two gay dads may not be enough to guide a daughter through her first menstrual cycle.

Alright, I admit that this one gave me pause. It's true that a girl probably will not feel comfortable turning to her fathers for this one. :-)

She'll need an aunt or grandmother or a sex ed teacher or a school nurse or a book or the trusted mother of a friend. But I will also fall back on my old argument: many, many straight mothers don't teach their daughters about this either.

Little boys and little girls need the loving influence of both a male and a female parent. The reality is that there are genuine, necessary differences that exist between the sexes, and these differences not only matter but are also significant to the best interests of a child.

Again, I was wrong. While I vehemently disagree with the first sentence, I do agree with the main clause of the second sentence. I won't pretend that the sexes are the same, and that women aren't better at some things than men, and vice versa.

But putting this in context to the gay adoption discussion, I just don't find it all that convincing. Any caring parent who knows he or she is ignorant of an issue will seek advice, read books, consult experts. Dr. Spock and other famous experts who wrote child-rearing books weren't writing to gay parents; they were writing to straight ones, because straight couples are just as clueless and struggling just as much as anyone else. And no ever suggested we prevent them from adopting.

[Gnomad]

Re: What have you watched recently?

But do you think that this is the primary goal of couples looking to adopt? Do you think that it's solely a political thing with them? I don't see that. It's usually a woman or man who wants to adopt the child of her or his partner. Or it's a couple who would get married if they could, and who want to start a family. I don't think it's anything more than that.

The "forcing legitimacy" aspect is usually an entirely different battle, it seems to me.

I didn't say it was the primary goal. I said "sometimes", and it is true in some cases. Straight couples do this to legitimize a relationship to themselves. Are you saying that straight and gay couples are not comparable? That would negate your entire stance.

Dan Savage says that homosexuality (and I guess bisexuality) is a "naturally occurring abnormality." He "cheerfully" admits to being abnormal. I was really surprised when I read that, but hey, it does make a certain sense. But homosexuality is different than "homosexual relationships." One is a way of being and the other is a behavior. But the behavior occurs because of the "being," so they can't really be discussed separately.

They can't be discussed seperately, especially on this topic, because they go hand it hand when arguing against why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. To qualify against my position, you have to be gay and in a relationship.

My answer to the "abnormal" argument (in regards to gay adoption) is that there was a time that monogamy wasn't normal either (and it's never been "natural"). So that would make all relationships abnormal in nature. It goes back to what Brock said: There is nothing normal, but thinking makes it so (Shakespeare paraphrase, yay!). First cousins can marry now. There are a lot of things that weren't normal that have become the norm.

You're absolutely right. They are now. The social laws I was referring to are not historical, they are present.

Heck, as far as nature goes, Cesarean sections aren't natural either! Or artificial insemination. Or birth control. Our entire societal set-up is unnatural.

Cesarean sections have a need to exist. I don't support artificial insemination. The fact that I'm even arguing against same sex couples adopting proves a need for birth control. I, in fact, do think our "societal set-up" is natural, but that's a completely different argument. All of these have nothing to do with same sex adoption.

Again, what's normal? There are states where 30-yr-olds can marry 13-yr-olds. So "normal" and "social laws" aren't always analogous to "moral." There are social norms and mores that are personally abhorrent to me, so maybe that's why I don't worry about them so much. I certainly don't think that laws should be based on the moral majority of the country.

I've never really believed that nothing is normal. If this were true, the word would have no place to exist. Normal behavior for me is getting up in the morning and going to work. If I woke up one morning and went scuba diving, that would not be normal for me. Whether you want to believe it or not, normal exists. This argument is flawed because you are choosing to ignore something that does in fact exist. If we also take into account biological make up, of course male-female is normal and male-male is abnormal. That's just how it is. It's fact. That's not something that I feel is up for debate.

Well, it's not that I believe a homosexual family can be just as normal. What I think is that homosexual families are as good as any other family. They all have the same flaws and the same good. I also think that, apart from moral realism (which I believe in, btw), this is both a moral and a civil rights issue...

I don't think they are. It's been proven that a child develops better with their biological parents vs. non-biological parents. It's been proven that a child develops better with both genders raising them simultaneously vs. one gender raising them alone. A same sex family violates both of these proven facts.

I think what's most fair for a kid is to get it out of foster care or adoption agencies and into a home that wants it and will take good care of it, no matter what gender the parents are. However, I will admit that, to me, this is also a civil rights issue. Not necessarily more so than child welfare, but still an important aspect.

So if a child is up for adoption and a straight couple and a gay couple of equal standing apply to adopt this child, who would you choose? Since a child does develop more appropriately with a parent of each gender, the straight couple is obviously better capable of handling this child than the gay couple. It's not a civil rights issue, it's a proven fact used in a method for choosing responsible parents, one that is in place and considered when choosing parents for adoption.

This is true from what I've read too, but these studies didn't include same-sex couples, correct? Only single parents, step-families, and married couples.

You are right on that, this is a fact I can't really dispute. However, a lot of the same principles used in studies of multi-conditional families I believe would carry over to same sex families.

But open adoptions allow the child to keep in touch with its biological parents if everyone agrees.

This is hardly ever the case and I don't think it's really even a considerable factor.

Also, all adopted kids are intentionally deprived of living with both biological parents. Children of divorce are intentionally deprived of living with both biological parents.

Yes, but not always. And as I said before, you can't really argue with things that happen mid-upbringing. Certain cases defy this debate because there is, almost always, absolutely no choice.

It is always easier for gay partners to get approved for "special-needs" kids than newborn, white infants (if they live in states that even allow adoption). And they want them. Very often, they prefer toddlers or young kids who are their own gender too.

It's actually middle-class white people who want healthy white infants. And these days, that's less and less the case since they will choose fertility drugs over adopting.

This I know for a fact is not true. The majority of same sex couples that choose to adopt do not usually opt for a "special-needs" child because they are far less likely to be accepted. In many states, a lot of the arguments I've made are major factors for "special-needs" children and, as insulting as it may be, same sex couples do have a disadvantage when applying for adoption of these children because their household is seen is a voltile environment.

So many gay adults suffered abuse as kids that they are more than willing to take in children who've had a difficult start. So, to me, a loving home with gay parents is infinitely better than years and years in an abusive situation whether it's in a biological home or a foster one.

I don't really feel I have a strong argument against this, but as fucked up as it may sound, I do think a foster home is a better living arrangement for "special-needs" children than a same sex household is.

I'm not an authority either. But when you say that you don't want to be the person to make the final call, well, would you vote against it?

Yes, I would.

I think a lot of things are based on society and where we are today. Not only is the world not ready to accept something like this, but the gay community is going through an aggressive struggle that I think prevents most gay couples from having the correct mindset for parenting. I do also recognize that my argument stands as a whole strongly. If you remove one of the factors of my argument, you change everything and it's a different world. Right now, I just don't think it's right for the child or even the parents.

I'm not expecting you to agree, but considering that you are a good person, Trathena, I do expect that you will respect my decision to disagree, as much as it seems to be a sensitive subject for you.

[Trathena]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Hi Gnomad. Just a few points and clarifications, and then I’ll leave you be. :-)

But first I must keep my promise to Kyle. I’ve recently watched my spouse try to convince our bus driver to get a library card. An exercise in futility.

Whether you want to believe it or not, normal exists. This argument is flawed because you are choosing to ignore something that does in fact exist. If we also take into account biological make up, of course male-female is normal and male-male is abnormal. That's just how it is. It's fact. That's not something that I feel is up for debate.

I absolutely think that “normal” exists. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. My point is that “normal” doesn’t necessarily mean “good,” or something to strive for, respect, or protect. To throw another cliché out there, slavery was once normal in the south; racism is normal; sexism is normal; homophobia is normal. Conversely, what was once traditionally abnormal (i.e., mixed-race marriages; black people in the military) has since become the norm. That’s all I meant. So what I was trying to say is that the “it’s abnormal” argument isn’t convincing to me, because what we think of as "normal" or "abnormal" is so fluid.

However, a lot of the same principles used in studies of multi-conditional families I believe would carry over to same sex families.

Here is another study from the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you don’t have time to read the entire report, Tufts breaks it down pretty succinctly.

I’ll add that it seems to me that any argument against gay adoption can also be applied to straight couples.

I'm not expecting you to agree, but considering that you are a good person, Trathena, I do expect that you will respect my decision to disagree, as much as it seems to be a sensitive subject for you.

Gnomad, it's my fault that our discussion got off on the wrong foot, so I want to be very clear about this: Nothing that you’ve said here has lowered my opinion of you even a little. Your opinion on gay adoption isn’t coming from a place of hate or bigotry, or ignorance; I know that.

Yes, it’s a sensitive subject for me, and of course, I disagree, but that’s where it ends for me. All I hoped to do was maybe offer you some differing thoughts on the issue. Considering how clumsily I opened this conversation with you, it’s a real compliment that you’ve continued it with me. So thank you.

[Gnomad]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Gnomad, it's my fault that our discussion got off on the wrong foot, so I want to be very clear about this: Nothing that you’ve said here has lowered my opinion of you even a little. Your opinion on gay adoption isn’t coming from a place of hate or bigotry, or ignorance; I know that.

Yes, it’s a sensitive subject for me, and of course, I disagree, but that’s where it ends for me. All I hoped to do was maybe offer you some differing thoughts on the issue. Considering how clumsily I opened this conversation with you, it’s a real compliment that you’ve continued it with me. So thank you.

It could also be said that it was my fault for taking it the wrong way. I don't hold any ill will towards you. In fact, I really appreciate how you approached my arguments. Most will just quickly call me a bigot, and I know I'm not. So thank you for doing me that justice. Unfortunately, I do have to say that most of the responses you've made have been posed to me before and were unsuccesful in swaying my opinion. In fact, I've read that document that you linked before as well. Otherwise, thank you for discussing this with civility. I do appreciate it.

Now. Let's get back to talking about what we've watched.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: What have you watched recently?

I watched a debate over same-sex couples adopting.

[Trathena]

Re: What have you watched recently?

^LOL. I love you.

I watched a show on Bravo about the 100 funniest movies of all time. I watched #100 to 76. Out of those 25 films, I think I've only seen four.

I need to watch more comedies, I guess.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Which 4?


I've seen all but 1 of the top 10, 2 of the top 20, 5 of top 30, 6 of top 40, 9 of top 50, 10 of top 60, 12 of top 70, 16 of top 80, 20 of top 90 and 21 of top 100.

[TheRuleofThree]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Loser.

I saw the original "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" for the first time in forever last night. AWESOME.

I remember how badass I used to think Casey Jones was.

[And we'll just put a happy little bush over here.]

Re: What have you watched recently?

Loser.

I saw the original "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" for the first time in forever last night. AWESOME.

I remember how badass I used to think Casey Jones was.

truth!

anybody seen hellboy 2? i cannot wait to go.