• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Missing' Man Sought by Gay Pal Is Willingly Undergoing Counseling, Family Says

Well, we're talking about the difference between parent's and non parent's. Anyone who has a kid, even an adopted kid, can tell you your perspective changes dramatically after you become a parent. I know mine did.

Time for me to stick my two bits in again.

I know the "you can't understand X unless you're Y" argument is tedious and annoying...but there is some element of truth in it. That's not to say that you can't have an opinion, or even that your opinion cannot be informed...but rather that you may not understand the emotional context of something if you haven't experienced it.

As a young man, I had two nieces who I played "substitute daddy" to. It was good for them and for me, and to this day I love them both dearly. It wasn't quite the same though, as when I had my own child that I raised from infancy. There is a difference, and it is hard to explain to those who don't have children. There is something primal in the brain that just wants to go haywire at any percieved threat to one's children, and while it is possible to control it most of the time, it is also not easy. It's also something that non-parents can probably imagine, but not really understand on a gut level.

So while I wouldn't want to overplay the "until you X you can't understand" argument, there is some validity to it in some life experiences.



I agree with all of that, except that I don't like Starbucks. The original comment I was referring to was about teaching homosexuality in public schools. The classroom is no place for that and it would motivate me to show up at school raising hell about it.

Yeah, I'd have a hard time staying calm about that too. I'd try, but it wouldn't be easy.
 
Time for me to stick my two bits in again.

I know the "you can't understand X unless you're Y" argument is tedious and annoying...but there is some element of truth in it. That's not to say that you can't have an opinion, or even that your opinion cannot be informed...but rather that you may not understand the emotional context of something if you haven't experienced it.

As a young man, I had two nieces who I played "substitute daddy" to. It was good for them and for me, and to this day I love them both dearly. It wasn't quite the same though, as when I had my own child that I raised from infancy. There is a difference, and it is hard to explain to those who don't have children. There is something primal in the brain that just wants to go haywire at any percieved threat to one's children, and while it is possible to control it most of the time, it is also not easy. It's also something that non-parents can probably imagine, but not really understand on a gut level.

So while I wouldn't want to overplay the "until you X you can't understand" argument, there is some validity to it in some life experiences.

What gets tedious, is when people with zero experience in a certain experience tell me what's is, or isn't appropriate to that situation, when my own experience out distances their by a gazillion percent.
 
As it happens, your previous post implied that those without kids can't legitimately engage in discussion about certain issues on this forum because of their lack of appropriate 'perspective.'

That's 100% true, when I'm being told that my parental reactions are wrong by someone whose never had a kid.

If I were talking about beating my kid, there may be some credibility there, but when I'm talking about protecting my kid from harm, or from harmful influences, someone who isn't a parent doesn't have enough credibility in that arena to tell me I'm wrong.
 
What gets tedious, is when people with zero experience in a certain experience tell me what's is, or isn't appropriate to that situation, when my own experience out distances their by a gazillion percent.

The fact of birthing a child or even raising a child does not in any way mean that you have greater experience or knowledge on topics involving children.
Millions of horrible parents raise children every year. The fact that they had a child doesn't mean that they are in a unique situation to comment on matter involving children.

Hell, pretty much any 14 year old can father or give birth to a child.
 
When was that exactly? They never located a so-called "gay gene" but they have never proved that homosexuality isn't something people are born with.

That something has genetic origins does not require a single, specific gene to be responsible. Instead, a combination of genes, each with subtle differences, could work in tandem. In short, even as no specific gene has been identified to explain a person's sexuality, that does not disprove a genetic basis to a person's sexuality.
 
That's 100% true, when I'm being told that my parental reactions are wrong by someone whose never had a kid.

If I were talking about beating my kid, there may be some credibility there, but when I'm talking about protecting my kid from harm, or from harmful influences, someone who isn't a parent doesn't have enough credibility in that arena to tell me I'm wrong.

Unfortunately for you, your position has just been plain wrong from the get-go here. You started out making the claim that you are free to act irrationally when it comes to your child in a public arena such as a school, whereupon I pointed out that no, you are not. Not unless you wish to be arrested, as that sort of behavior can be construed as a definite threat to the safety of children and faculty.

Having been shown the textbook definition of irrational, rather than admit that perhaps you chose your particular vocabulary unwisely, you then proceed to make the claim that one's perspective is sufficient to change said textbook definition, which is another error. Definitions do not change due to circumstance or perception; acting irrationally in a public school is acting irrationally regardless of whether or not one is a parent.

Assuming you wish to continue this long-defeated argument, you'll need to provide some sort of proof that definitions change under such circumstances - something I doubt you'd be capable of doing, simply because it's linguistically impossible. Of course, anything can happen. Maybe you can get millions of English-speaking individuals to suddenly switch definitions of words like 'irrational' based on whether or not you are a parent. If so, I humbly request that you change the words 'ninja' and 'pirate' to 'rattlesnake' and 'pteradactyle', respectively. I'm getting tired of the old internet debate about which is better between the two, and it would be nice to see some webpages designed for moms and dads dealing with the proverbial rattlesnake and pteradactyle fight.

Besides, ninjas and pirates are last year's pink!
 
Last edited:
That's 100% true, when I'm being told that my parental reactions are wrong by someone whose never had a kid.

I don't believe anyone has told you your parental reactions are wrong. You've been told those reactions are irrational. An overwhelming instinct to protect a child from perceived danger is not necessarily wrong, though at times it may be partly or entirely irrational based on the true nature of the threat.

If I were talking about beating my kid, there may be some credibility there, but when I'm talking about protecting my kid from harm, or from harmful influences, someone who isn't a parent doesn't have enough credibility in that arena to tell me I'm wrong.

We're back to the same fallacy. If you haven't walked in my shoes you have no credibility.

You could and have used that fallacy in other threads as well. It's no more valid here than anywhere else.

It's no more valid than the argument that white folks don't have credibility to debate racism. Or that men don't have credibility to discuss abortion. Or that civilians don't have credibility discussing military policy.

Fallacious.

:roll:
 
I don't believe anyone has told you your parental reactions are wrong. You've been told those reactions are irrational. An overwhelming instinct to protect a child from perceived danger is not necessarily wrong, though at times it may be partly or entirely irrational based on the true nature of the threat.



We're back to the same fallacy. If you haven't walked in my shoes you have no credibility.

You could and have used that fallacy in other threads as well. It's no more valid here than anywhere else.

It's no more valid than the argument that white folks don't have credibility to debate racism. Or that men don't have credibility to discuss abortion. Or that civilians don't have credibility discussing military policy.

Fallacious.

:roll:

Obviously, you haven't read Singularity's posts.

Kindly allow me to quote Singularity:

Unfortunately for you, your position has just been plain wrong from the get-go here. You started out making the claim that you are free to act irrationally when it comes to your child in a public arena such as a school, whereupon I pointed out that no, you are not. Not unless you wish to be arrested, as that sort of behavior can be construed as a definite threat to the safety of children and faculty.
 
The fact of birthing a child or even raising a child does not in any way mean that you have greater experience or knowledge on topics involving children.

What an astonishingly erroneous statement.

There are bad parents, there are mediocre parents, and there are good parents, yes. There are those who have put enormous thought and effort into their parenting, and there are those who have not.

However to make a blanket declaration that raising a child does not mean you have more experience in topics about children than (most of) those who never have, makes no sense.

The difference is between theoretical knowlege and actual hands-on experience.

For example, you can spend four years at Tech studying engine mechanics, and be well-versed in the theory of automotive repair. Until you get some practical experience, Joe Somebody who never went to Tech but has spent twenty years as a professional mechanic still has far more actual experience and ability than you do...because yours is mostly theory.

Until you've actually taken the water pump off a '68 Thunderbird, there are things you aren't going to quite "get" no matter how much you've read on the subject.

If you've spent twenty years as a guidance councelor at a middle school, you probably know things about school, the way children function and behave at school, and related topics than Average Parent. If you don't have children yourself, there will still be aspects of parenting that you probably don't "get", from lack of experience.

If you're a child therapist you might know more about some aspects of children's issues than Average Parent. If you also have three kids of your own, your opinion will carry a LOT more weight with me than otherwise.

If you're a Rhodes Scholar in Mathmatics, I'm not going to debate you on Fermi's Paradox. However, you can calculate until your brain overheats, but I still know better how many forty-foot ceiling joists will fit on a 10-ton pig truck and make to the jobsite, because I spent a few years making a living loading trucks. Another case where theory doesn't beat experience.


I'll grant you the right to an opinion. Your opinion may even be a well-informed and well-thought-out one. It may be worth listening to. But to fail to note the difference that having actually done something makes is to ignore the entire worth of experience.


Hell, pretty much any 14 year old can father or give birth to a child.

Just in case you don't know, being a sperm donor and being a REAL FATHER are two entirely different things.
 
Obviously, you haven't read Singularity's posts.

Kindly allow me to quote Singularity:

I did read Singularity's previous posts, thanks.

Now you're skirting the issue and changing the subject, which is another neat trick on message boards.

The point of my post is that those with children have no particular moral or intellectual authority when debating issues about child-rearing. We all bring our own life experiences to the forum. Some of us have children. Others don't. Some of us live in the city. Others in rural areas. Some of us are young. Others are old. Some are men. Some are women. Some are fat. Some are thin.

You've made the argument in this thread and in others that whole segments of the forum simply aren't qualified to participate in certain discussions based on their life experiences, or lack of them.

That's just wrong. And that was my point.

:2wave:
 
I did read Singularity's previous posts, thanks.

Now you're skirting the issue and changing the subject, which is another neat trick on message boards.

The point of my post is that those with children have no particular moral or intellectual authority when debating issues about child-rearing. We all bring our own life experiences to the forum. Some of us have children. Others don't. Some of us live in the city. Others in rural areas. Some of us are young. Others are old. Some are men. Some are women. Some are fat. Some are thin.

You've made the argument in this thread and in others that whole segments of the forum simply aren't qualified to participate in certain discussions based on their life experiences, or lack of them.

That's just wrong. And that was my point.

:2wave:


I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, for two reasons. 1) A parent does have moral authority when expressing opinions on child rearing. That's the reason that I reserve my opinions on abortion and gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it won't ever affect me, I can't see things from that perspective, so I steer clear of those arguments.

2) I don't think that I've ever told anyone that they're not qualified to participate in a discussion, because of their life experiences, or lack there of. What I have done, is to point out one of two things, their wrong to tell me how wrong I am, because they haven't walked a mile in my shoes and secondly, their opinion is flawed, because they can't see things from the correct perspective. They perfectly qualified to express their opinons and I'm perfectly qualified to tell them why I disagree. I think that's why they call it, "debate".
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, for two reasons. 1) A parent does have moral authority when expressing opinions on child rearing. That's the reason that I reserve my opinions on abortion and gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it won't ever affect me, I can't see things from that perspective, so I steer clear of those arguments.

2) I don't think that I've ever told anyone that they're not qualified to participate in a discussion, because of their life experiences, or lack there of. What I have done, is to point out one of two things, their wrong to tell me how wrong I am, because they haven't walked a mile in my shoes and secondly, their opinion is flawed, because they can't see things from the correct perspective. They perfectly qualified to express their opinons and I'm perfectly qualified to tell them why I disagree. I think that's why they call it, "debate".

I think this statement clears up your position a bit. I get the impression that you realize that perhaps saying that you have the right to act irrationally at a school was probably a poor choice of words. Sternly or even confrontationally, let's go with that instead, in which case I think most folks on this thread would agree with you. If you feel that your child was being taught about homosexuality in school - something you don't agree with - then I would assume you would be upset. Anyone would in your position provided they disagreed with the teaching. But irrational? I don't think you'd just chuck your mental facilities out the window, head up to the local school, and just go crazy.

Or at least let's hope not...
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, for two reasons. 1) A parent does have moral authority when expressing opinions on child rearing.

Interesting argument.

So let me ask you, who has more moral authority in a discussion of teaching children about homosexuality? A conservative parent who teaches homosexuality is wrong based on religious teaching? A liberal parent who teaches that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted? A lesbian mother? A single straight man with no children? A single gay man with no children? Or a single gay man with an adopted child?

:2wave:
 
I think this statement clears up your position a bit. I get the impression that you realize that perhaps saying that you have the right to act irrationally at a school was probably a poor choice of words. Sternly or even confrontationally, let's go with that instead, in which case I think most folks on this thread would agree with you. If you feel that your child was being taught about homosexuality in school - something you don't agree with - then I would assume you would be upset. Anyone would in your position provided they disagreed with the teaching. But irrational? I don't think you'd just chuck your mental facilities out the window, head up to the local school, and just go crazy.

Or at least let's hope not...

I think very confrontational would be most accurate, I believe.

Would I head up to the local school house and go crazy? Well, that would all depend on why I was headed to the school house, to begin with. I mean, I've done it before. For the right reasons, I would do it again. If I feel like one of my kids are danger, you can count on it happening.
 
Last edited:
Interesting argument.

So let me ask you, who has more moral authority in a discussion of teaching children about homosexuality? A conservative parent who teaches homosexuality is wrong based on religious teaching? A liberal parent who teaches that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted? A lesbian mother? A single straight man with no children? A single gay man with no children? Or a single gay man with an adopted child?

:2wave:

In a word? The PARENT has 100% of the moral authority to teach his/her kid(s) about homosexuality.
 
In a word? The PARENT has 100% of the moral authority to teach his/her kid(s) about homosexuality.

You answered a question I did not ask, which is becoming a pattern.

I did not ask who has more authority to teach their child about homosexuality. I asked who has more authority in a discussion on a message board.

:2wave:
 
You answered a question I did not ask, which is becoming a pattern.

I did not ask who has more authority to teach their child about homosexuality. I asked who has more authority in a discussion on a message board.

:2wave:

It appears that I did answer the question you asked, afterall.:2wave:
 
'Missing' Man Sought by Gay Pal Is Willingly Undergoing Counseling, Family Says - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com



My opinion is that the guy is 23 years old, so if he wants to undergo therapy to 'cure' himself of homosexuality, go right ahead. I don't agree with the activist's opinion, that the family is forcing him to go (and if they are, he has the option to simply say "no"). However, I think it's ridiculous that organizations like Exodus International are free to operate with that agenda. Turnabout is fair play - if some backwards group can operate freely in the US with the goal of 'curing' someone of homosexuality, I see no problem with educating children about homosexuality and acceptance in a public school system.

Of course. If some private citizens have an agenda you don't like that makes it okay for you to propagate your counter-agenda via the public school system. Nothing wrong with a little moral indoctrination by the government, nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Of course. If some private citizens have an agenda you don't like that makes it okay for you to propagate your counter-agenda via the public school system. Nothing wrong with a little moral indoctrination by the government, nothing at all.

The Hitler Youth had their own classroom agenda, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom