posted
I don't have cataracts, but I am severely near sighted.
I must say, the world is beautiful without my glasses. Especially lights. At Christmas I always take some time to view the tree without contacts or glasses.
I understand that Monet eventually did have the operation though, didn't he? And was appalled at how much he had mispercieved color.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire. It's perhaps a little on the romantic and sentimental side.
Currently, a child related to one or the other of a couple has to do. It has to be frustrating to them that so many children are neglected, or the parents break up over something stupid, or just take that ability for granted.
Anyway, homosexuals are in that respect not fully functional. Maybe I'm wrong that it bothers them. But I like to think they have the same desires to parent as heterosexuals.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly have no idea as to the accuracy of the poem from a historical perspective. When I first came across it, I believe I tried to track down information, and I ended up finding controversy (IIRC) about whether he even had cataracts. Some sources seemed to believe this to be pure speculation.
What I find intriguing and compelling is the perspective that the poem offers, regardless of whether it refers to events that have ever actually occurred. Before I read it, I was a die-hard medical-model "disease is disease, injury is injury" person. It made me think. That got me interested.
quote:Anyway, homosexuals are in that respect not fully functional. Maybe I'm wrong that it bothers them. But I like to think they have the same desires to parent as heterosexuals.
Probably some homsoexuals have the same desire to parent as some heterosexuals do. That would be my guess.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably doesn't bother all of them, just like it doesn't bother all heterosexuals.
But I think it is true. Of the lesbian couple, they must have a sperm donor. And of the male couple, they must have not only an egg donor, but a surrogate as well. Or else adopt.
This is something that no amount of social acceptance or rights can change.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
And there is also the attachment formed by adopting. What the approach above commits us to saying is also that adoptive parents have less of an attachment to their children than do biological ones. Mind you, that may be correct -- but it is a deduction that follows from the premise, so it's worth committing to it in full awareness.
I realize that this may not fly far for those with certain religious beliefs, but some of us without the biological drive to have our own children believe there to be specific benefits to not having that drive. Not to speak for her, but I think our Janitor has written eloquently about this somewhere on the web. (She and her husband do not have children, but they have many many people in their home and lives, and they play many roles in those lives.)
[ January 07, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think adoption is beautiful. I'm simply saying there are a lot of people who undergo painful and expensive fertility treatments to get their own children. Before I read some of the personal accounts here, I felt adoption was better. But I don't think we have to put one above the other.
P.S. You have to keep in mind that my position on the deaf is that they are a minority with special needs, not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition nor are they a simple variation on normal.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree, totally [with the "But I don't think we have to put one above the other']. I'd call that "not privileging one context over another," but the idea is just the same.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before I read it, I was a die-hard medical-model "disease is disease, injury is injury" person. It made me think.
Somehow this is bringing to mind our conversation from a couple of years ago about surgery to remove a cancerous eye in a Hmong child, who without the surgery would certainly die. I'm sure you remember it, but for the sake of those who don't, or who weren't here then, the dilemma was this--the family viewed the idea of the surgery with horror, since in their belief system removing the eye would result in all future incarnations of that person having only one eye. In their minds, it was better for him to die once of the cancer than to be deprived of an eye in all future incarnations. The doctors, of course, were approaching the problem from the a more conventional western perspective, and without a belief in reincarnation viewed the parent's attitude as being beyond abusive. At least, that's my recollection of it. Sara, if you remember the case better than I do, feel free to correct me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still haven't written my thoughts out for you, Noemon!
I think my wavering and reluctance about that case (and your request for input) rests on knowing that any argument made isn't going to be a satisfactory one. I think there are better and worse solutions, and -- given the context in which the situation occurs -- more and less workable situations.
But better to puzzle through it than just avoid it, eh? I'll try to tackle my thoughts about it here.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I can articulate why, but in my mind there is a big difference between religious beliefs that allow the child to die of cancer and religious beliefs that require them to slay their child.
This was touched upon in an abortion thread a few months back, but I was never able to resolve it in my mind to my satisfaction.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Deep Space 9, where one culture forbade autopsies but there was suspicion that a murder had occured.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a great case for probing the iffiest areas, isn't it, Porter? For me, it's like probing a sore tooth with my tongue. I'm drawn to it, yet I dread it.
[Yeah, Trisha. Exactly.]
[ January 07, 2005, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when we were talking about the Garden of Eden yesterday it later occured to me that what wound up happening is that Adam decided to commit a sin of commission in order to stop a sin of ommision. (If one interprets "Multiply..." and "Don't Partake..." as contradicting commandments.)
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have to keep in mind that my position on the deaf is that they are a minority with special needs, not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition nor are they a simple variation on normal.
What other position would be expected of you or others, given that it's a variation on the broader mainstream cultural view on deafness?
Now, is this the only position to have? (OK, it's a loaded question and I'm providing an answer.)
I posted this on another thread, but it looks like I might as well post it here, too:
--recycled posting here--
For anyone interested in the social construction aspects of disability, there's a great account of a real time and place in our own country - a time and place in which deafness was not considered a disability or even deviant. (I don't think anyone has mentioned this book. Apologies if I missed it.)
It's been awhile (probably over 10 years) since I read it, so here's one of the customer reviews on Amazon that gives some good information on the book:
quote: Inspiring and interesting, February 9, 2002 Reviewer: lifeboatless_earthling (Massachusetts) - See all my reviews
This is one of my favorite books of all time. Originally written as an ethnographic study, it is also completely readable for a non-professional popular audience. Basically, it is the story of the islanders of Martha's Vineyard, a large island off the coast of Massachusetts. The islanders originally came from the same 2 or 3 boatloads of colonists from England, by way of Boston and Scituate, from a region in Kent which already seems to have had a high incidence of hereditary deafness. Due to the geographic isolation of the island, recessive genes for deafness, which were already prominent in the original Kentish colonists, came increasingly to the fore. As the proportions of islanders who happened to be deaf gradually increased, what was the islanders' answer? Not shunning the deaf. Far from it. Rather, a tradition arose that EVERYONE on the island, deaf or hearing, simply learned sign language as children!
This book is full of fascinating little anecdotes, about how island society worked to include its deaf members. For example, we learn about families and friends, some deaf and some hearing, who would regularly sit next to each other in church. The hearing members would sign the sermons to their deaf friends. Or, sometimes groups of people who could hear perfectly well might be together, for whatever reason, and they might happen to converse by signing just as much as in spoken English. Everyone spoke both languages.
Some of my favorite parts of the book focus on the benefits of signing. For example, perhaps two neighbors wanted to converse, while being separated by 200 yards of noisy space, made vocally impenetrable by sounds of surf and sea. Whether they were deaf or hearing, they could get out their spyglasses (this was a 19th century whaling community, where spyglasses were in every household) and sign to each other across the distance while viewing each other through the magnification afforded by the spyglasses. One entertaining anecdote tells of two young men, who could hear perfectly well, who would use their signing ability to pick up girls off-island. They would pique the girls' interest in them by signing amongst themselves, and would claim that one of them was deaf. After they had secured the girls' interest, they would put on a lengthy, well-practiced charade of deafness to keep the gils curious about them. Do they ever let on that they can really hear? You'll have to read the book to find out! Bwa ha ha haaaa ( that's the sound of an evil laugh).
Those are a few minor anecdotes. The whole book is packed with stories like that, and it's endlessly amazing. The last couple of chapters make excellent, general points about the human issues raised in the book, and about how we as a society think about the "handicapped" -- perhaps, as Dr. Groce points out, we should not use the term in the first place.
posted
(Just for clarity, I've edited my above post that sits below Trisha's and above Noemon's, as I was agreeing with the first part of her post (before the edit), not the last part (her edit))
[ January 07, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes. In my classes, Martha's Vineyard was mentioned often as a lost utopia for the Deaf to be remembered with sweet fondness.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am really glad that I had the opportunity to learn about Deaf culture and sign language. Even if some of the things I learned bothered me, it allows me to begin to understand and empathize.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still haven't written my thoughts out for you, Noemon!
Nope! I have to admit that while I really did bring it up because your comments brought it to mind, I also brought it up in hopes of finally hearing your thoughts on the subject.
quote:But better to puzzle through it than just avoid it, eh? I'll try to tackle my thoughts about it here
quote: not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition
This is a bit of a straw man presentation of some other opinions that have been expressed in this thread. People irritated by deaf activism.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because they pronounce an acquired foreign language the same does not make Welsh and Hindi related. (Um, there is a thread about this but I just used up all my search tokens unearthing this.)
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that in the time since this thread last saw light, I now have a nephew who is largely deaf (the doctors aren't sure why). His mother was planning to home school before all this, so she is teaching him sign and is encouraging all of us to learn sign. I suppose I should put more effort into that.
Well, the reason I was bumping this is to address the question of "Talking down to your children." The evidence that children do not learn language by hearing adult speech came, oddly enough, from a deaf couple who gave birth to a hearing child. Wanting the child to learn to speak, they let it watch tv and had the radio on talk shows regularly. But the child did not learn to speak from that exposure. I'm sure deaf activists just have a conniption over this story, how the child may have missed the opportunity to learn sign in a literally fruitless effort of hearing input. I don't recall anymore if they parents didn't teach the child sign. I can't imagine playing with a baby without using what language you have, inadvertently.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there is a reason behind this. Most Language Arts teachers teach Language Arts because they love literature, not because they are linguists. And so this takes from them the responsibility to carry out a part of their jobs they find tedious, and frees them up to spend more time on literature.
But, in my experience, it tends to do their students a disservice.
I actually argued with the director of undergraduate studies for my major for having the major in linguistics added to the education/language arts track so that I could major in linguistics rather than literature. I argued that abilities as a linguist would make me a better teacher, and the linguistics degree still required a good sample of literature classes so I would be getting both.
I *love* linguistics and think it's a crime that my university only requires 1 class in linguistics to graduate with a teaching degree for Language arts. I sincerely believe we would be better served with people in schools who love language as much as they love literature.
I'm actually hoping to get a grad degree in linguistics, I'll just have to see how things fall.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine expecting that your child will "learn speech" by passively absorbing TV and radio broadcasts. Even in environments where people aren't talking down to children, they're still interacting with children. While I didn't consciously dumb down my vocabulary for Sophie, I made sure to add additional context and visual cues to the sentences I used for her, and I think more than half the vocab she picked up was due directly to that sort of custom interaction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, the reason I was bumping this is to address the question of "Talking down to your children."
I don't see how you're addressing it. There are lots of ways you can talk to children without necessarily talking down to them.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, she was attempting to rebut KQ's claim that she doesn't talk down to children by arguing that it's impossible to teach children language without talking down to them. I don't think her example proves that point, but I DO think that she's right -- for a certain definition of "talking down" which does not necessarily require a simpler vocabulary, but which does require that special care be taken in using words or sentence structures with more complexity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good for you, Belle. I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's a shame that we treat English and language arts like such important subjects and then fail to teach students a more scientific and analytical approach to those subjects.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, she was attempting to rebut KQ's claim that she doesn't talk down to children by arguing that it's impossible to teach children language without talking down to them. I don't think her example proves that point, but I DO think that she's right -- for a certain definition of "talking down" which does not necessarily require a simpler vocabulary, but which does require that special care be taken in using words or sentence structures with more complexity.
I completely agree with this.
I would like to note something I learned in developmental psychology -- it seems that infants and children hear higher pitched sounds more easily and so, they theorize, this is why mothers get that baby voice that is an octave or so higher than their normal speech.
Unfortunately, I never seemed to get the hang of baby voice. I talk to my son like a human being. He seems to be learning language ok for all that, so I guess I'm not screwing him up.
I do double-talk with him. (I don't know if that's an official word or not.) Basically, I say something like I would to any grown up and then I rephrase it to help him with the meaning. For example. "Are you getting tired?" Then I will follow this with doing the sleep sign (we do baby signs) and saying, "Nap?"
We use pretty big words with him. One of my husband's favorite words is "inefficient." But with that, too, we follow it up with a simpler explanation which usually involves what the more efficient solution is. "Try holding the spoon like this." (for example)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe in not correcting children's errors of grammar, as they pick up grammar in a certain specific order, and depending on what stage they're in, they will have certain errors but not others. But I think studying grammar once you've acquired your langauge (say in sixth to eighth grade) is a great idea.
That said, I think I learned correct grammar from reading a lot, like most people have said, instead of from studying it. But I had a fantastic English teacher in 6th-8th grade and she did teach us why something is correct, rather than just "because it sounds right" which is what I knew on my own. It was interesting and useful to know that.
The grammar error that I notice most in the world is not improper use of the subjunctive ("If I was omnipotent..." vs. "If I were omnipotent..."), or split infinitives ("To boldly go..." vs. "Boldly to go..."). It is the lie lay thing ("Yesterday I laid (or worse "layed") out in the sun" vs. "Yesterday I lay out in the sun.") Almost nobody gets that right, and I notice it every time I see it. Then I have an impulse to correct the person. Then I stifle that impulse because it's not polite and because I make mistakes all the time in various things and people don't correct me (though perhaps it would be good if they did sometimes, if they did it in a way that wasn't a putdown.)
To me this is an interesting thread, and I'm glad it got revived. I just read through the whole thing, so I'm responding to various ideas that have come up throughout the thread.
I think talking to children in whatever way comes naturally is just fine. Absent any learning disabilities or other special needs, they are going to tend to pick up the same level of ability with language that their parents and siblings display. Reading to them a lot, and interacting with them verbally in other ways, is all they really need. Baby talk serves an important function.
I'm sort of geeky, and my father was as well. It may be the case that inability to metabolize certain fatty acids that cause brain inflammation may be the cause for that. Both of us are pretty smart in lots of things that don't involve people, though. Like math, science, engineering, building things, understanding machines, and for me, just about all school subjects. So the question becomes, if I could be "normal", whatever that is, would I do it? Would I have to give up this deep appreciation of math? Would I have to give up my science and engineering ability? Certainly I would like to understand people better, and be able to connect with them more easily, but I want it to be a "too" thing and not an "instead" thing. If I had to pick being me or being "normal", I would rather be me. So I understand how deaf people can feel the same way.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[I do believe in not correcting children's errors of grammar, as they pick up grammar in a certain specific order, and depending on what stage they're in, they will have certain errors but not others. But I think studying grammar once you've acquired your langauge (say in sixth to eighth grade) is a great idea.[/quote]
I totally disagree. I think grammar comes more naturally to those who hear it correctly and hear themselves corrected. Their brains make the connections more easily when they try it out and hear it repeated back to them correctly. You don't have to be nasty about it. Mothers have a natural kind of way of doing this:
Child: Can I have a cookie? Mom: May I have a cookie...and no, you have to wait until after dinner.
You don't call attention to it or call them stupid or wrong. You just gently say it the right way and move on so that they hear it the right way and know what the right way is.
Otherwise, they're going to have a heck of a time in middle school trying to figure out why one way is right and another isn't. It really is kind of arbitrary when it comes down to it, but I always got A's in grammar without trying because I just chose the answer that sounded right -- the one that my mom used gentle redirection to show me.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: 9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
Being alive is not better than being dead. It's just "different".
Being healthy is not better than being sick. It's just "different".
Having no arms or legs is not better than having arms and legs. It's just "different".
I get how some people make a virtue of a necessity. It helps them cope. But when it reaches the point (as it has) where some deaf parents want their children to be deaf as well, that's just child abuse.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
What a horrible comparison. Being gay doesn't prevent me from doing anything. Unless you count falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, in which case heterosexuals are just as incapable of falling in love with members of the same sex.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This reasoning still applies to the homosexual community. I haven't met one who doesn't say "If I could choose to be straight, it would be so much easier..."
I've met hundreds who say that. You need to get out more. Google "magic pill" and "gay" and see what you get.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have my reasons for holding [my opinions] about homosexuality. . . . They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
*nod*
I agree/I believe you.
I don't have a problem with Christians considering homosexuality sinful. I don't think they are bigots for doing so.
And that's as much as I will say there.
She went beyond calling it "sinful" and compared it to a disability. That is definitely bigoted.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wonderful thing about linguistics is that most experiments that could prove or disprove anything would be considered so horribly unethical, they will never be conducted. So like the field of pregnancy pharmacology, we are left with data to be gleaned from the case studies of exigency. I think people who say they don't "talk down" to their children must have a weird idea of what it means to talk down.
I think the deaf community's rejection of people with cochlear implants would be like if there was an adoption community which banded together to reject people who were the product of fertility treatment. I mean, I guess I belong to a community of folks who think their appearance is okay, who struggle to reject the idea that everyone would be happier with cosmetic surgery. And I think my view is reasonable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get.
I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always felt people should adopt until I got to an age where I started to know more people who wanted their own kids and couldn't. In my experience it is more often the husband who feels less interested in adopting if he can't spread his own seed. It's also a different matter when you've been able to have your own children. I'll never really know what it's like to struggle with that, especially if you're a religious person and how barrenness is used as a curse and lifting it as a blessing throught the Bible. Blindness is also used as a metaphor for wickedness in the scriptures. I guess I know how it feels to have your firstborn smote.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
And yet, people do go to extraordinary lengths to have a genetically related child. It might seem bizarre to you, but there's a fertility industry that suggests it's a common desire.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
You're out of line, Lisa, especially with the juvenile name-calling.
Beyond that, pooka's statement that it is a common desire that is also experienced by homosexuals is a true statement. There is nothing in what you quoted that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get.
I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
Why is it bizarre that people want a child linked to them genetically? It seems to be a very productive thing to desire, from an evolutionary and reproductive standpoint. I have had and continue to have that desire (and have been blessed to have that desire fulfilled).
On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted. Can't it be both ways?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
You're out of line, Lisa, especially with the juvenile name-calling.
I disagree. If she's going to be a bigot, she's going to be called on it.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Beyond that, pooka's statement that it is a common desire that is also experienced by homosexuals is a true statement. There is nothing in what you quoted that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship.
She stated an opinion about whether most people desire a particular thing. How is that bigoted against people who don't desire that particular thing?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted.
I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
The problem with your assessment is that "all other attributes" are not being held equal. Adoption requires a pretty grueling process, an element of selection, and the knowledge that the parent is caring for a child that is at risk of not receiving adequate care. Surrogate motherhood and sperm donation require other types of effort - a tangible symbol of the strength of the desire for the child.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted.
I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
I'm really having trouble with this whole line of reasoning. It's cold and impersonal. Children aren't just lists of attributes, they are human beings. How can you suggest then, that lacking a desirable attribute makes one child inferior compared to another? This concept doesn't even belong in a discussion of children. This isn't math -- it is human love.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
And thus we see how the word bigot is losing all meaning.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
She stated an opinion about whether most people desire a particular thing. How is that bigoted against people who don't desire that particular thing?
She doesn't have the first idea what gay people want or don't want, what we feel or what we don't feel, what we think or what we don't think. She's gone on record in the past as claiming that homosexuality is inherently misogynistic. She's found any number of justifications for her bigotry, and very few of them have been religious dogma. Rather, they've been personal assumptions about people who are different from her.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That got me interested.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
