Deafs be allowed to marry?

Lau2046

Well-Known Member
Deaf People - Famous and Historic Deaf and Hearing People



Should these famous deaf people never been allowed to be born???

And does your parents know what you're learning in collage, I would really upset if my child was given this assignment.
You'd be amazed what they teach in school these days. Some of the "courses" taught at Ivy League colleges would make your hair stand on end. Ivy League isn't always better - sometimes they're idiots with fancy degrees....

Laura
 

TinCanSailor

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So I wonder....is it ok for a deaf person to buy a Chevy Impala SS and then turbocharge it? Then show off to chicks. If the chick approves of it, marry that chick, right?
Makes sense to me. :dizzy: Wait a minute,....... will you let her drive it when she marries you? :P
 

RandomHearie

New Member
My guess is that the teacher assigned this so that students would experience reactions and over reactions since they are ASL students. Success.
Hey, OP, if this is true, you should tell the forum once the teacher explains it to you. This sounds like a fascinating but highly insensitive social experiment. I can understand wanting to send a student off to say something offensive and show you the reaction, but that's not just cruel to the student, it's cruel to the D/deaf posters who just found out that someone still thinks it's okay to question their position as part of humanity and whether it's okay to have more of them in the next generation. Leaving aside what ambrosia explained better than I could about why this isn't even a feasible way to get rid of deafness if we did want to, the question goes beyond just asking whether deafness is something to try to prevent. It asks whether deaf people should be ALLOWED to marry and produce deaf offspring. So not only is the question about the desirability of deafness as a trait, the question implies that it's okay for the majority to decide to curtail basic rights and freedoms of the minority in order to prevent more of said minority from being born.

So, OP, you just went on a forum of mostly deaf (and largely Deaf) people and asked "is deafness horrible enough that we can treat you like second-class citizens in order to avoid having more of you in the next generation?"

Maybe you didn't come up with the question, and if so, it was at best pretty thoughtless of your teacher to make you ask it, but on the other hand, you really should be able to understand why people are angry.

Personally, I'm laughing because I'm not going to get worked up about someone whose opinions have been that thoroughly discredited. Eugenics on that scale will never get anywhere, not when it's so easy to just say "Hitler did it" and avoid giving an actual counterargument. Which isn't because there aren't any to be made. There are lots, like: but it won't work! But it wouldn't stop people from entering relationships with each other anyway! But if they breed with the hearies instead, it'll spread deaf genes through a greater percentage of the population, not a smaller one! But even if we accept that it's undesirable, surely it's not so undesirable that it's worth breaking people's hearts over!

Oh, and since you're printing this thread out and showing your teacher (I hope this shows my username, too; I wouldn't want to pass as qualified when I'm not), this is a note for them: social experiments of this form are impolite because they cause friction and mistrust between people. The question is also not acceptable as a serious topic of debate now because it's no longer controversial. If you don't know that, you need to spend some time getting acquainted with certain recent societal changes before you teach your next class.

(Hang on a second. OP, are you living in some kind of third-world country where this is still up for debate? Because if so, then it could be a much more reasonable thing to assign you to do. If wanting to prevent deaf people from marrying is considered a legitimate position in your area, then asking about it on a forum full of D/deaf people is probably the best thing you could do, because hey, they ARE the experts on DHH issues, right?)
 

ambrosia

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If I knew you were in Boston Ambrosia, I would have tried to make the trip more fun by introducing you to the North End...:D...I HATE MRIs.....I agree marriage isn't a choice government or society should make...if it were allowed, how would we explain half the marriages in the Entertainment community?

Laura
:D This was like 11 years ago I think. My MRI was kind of funny. They gave me headphones to listen to music during it, after I put them on the guy asked me, can you hear it? No, I'm here because I'm going deaf!! Turns it up for me okay good. At one Metallica's One came on:D. Here I am in an MRI trying to be perfectly still and I'm listening to song about a guy that can't move or speak or see, only hear. Weird. I've had 2 MRIs and I fell asleep both times haha.

And no shit huh?
 

whatdidyousay!

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I find this topic to be very offensive.

Perhaps they should have topic on "Why hearing people are so closed minded, and ignorant with Deaf community?" instead? That would be more appropriate topic, eh?
You have nothing to to be sorry about. I have no idea what the teacher or
OP is trying find out but I find this very disturbing that any teacher would tell their students to go out and ask these kind of questions , it show a lack of respect to the Deaf and HOH community and it also show that there is still a lot of work that still need to be done to eduction the hearing population.
 

whatdidyousay!

Well-Known Member
You'd be amazed what they teach in school these days. Some of the "courses" taught at Ivy League colleges would make your hair stand on end. Ivy League isn't always better - sometimes they're idiots with fancy degrees....

Laura
I agree that there are teachers that unfortunately bring their biased opinions
in their classrooms. And there will be students that disagree with or question their teachers. And other students will agree with their teachers.
I see nothing wrong with having a healthy debate in the classroom , but I feel the kinds of questions the OP is more like going backward than forward.
 

alicatpeace

New Member
:lol:

i get a feeling that OP is a young teenager like 13?
Obviously. :) I am a young teen (15) but I wouldn't ask these questions. Obviously Deaf people should be able to marry other Deaf people because that is what they are most comfortable with. I also think that YES they should be able to have children even if they know they will be Deaf. I don't think deafness is a disability. I think it is a chance to exceed excellence a different way than those who have the ability to hear. :)
 

NismoS14

New Member
Hi,
I am doing a research project of deaf people and marriages. Can I have some opinions on a couple questions?

1. Should deaf people be allowed to marry other deafs?
2. Should deaf people be allowed to reproduce if they know that their children will be deaf?


Thank you all so much!!!!
Yes and Yes

I don't see what is wrong with trying to take over hearing world just like the movies about apes take over the world. :laugh2:
 

NismoS14

New Member
Which school do you go to and where? What is your teacher's name who gave you this assignments?

Failure to answer the questions I asked means that this thread was all made up by the poster for the entertainment.
 

NaidaUP

Well-Known Member
:D This was like 11 years ago I think. My MRI was kind of funny. They gave me headphones to listen to music during it, after I put them on the guy asked me, can you hear it? No, I'm here because I'm going deaf!! Turns it up for me okay good. At one Metallica's One came on:D. Here I am in an MRI trying to be perfectly still and I'm listening to song about a guy that can't move or speak or see, only hear. Weird. I've had 2 MRIs and I fell asleep both times haha.

And no shit huh?
HA, I had a MRI the other day and the guy was pushing for me to wear headphones so he could speak to me. He couldn't understand my notes, profoundly deaf, unable to hear anything without my HAs.
 

needsleep

Member
I just wish I could see the MRI tech's face once things click in their heads.

"Hey, you need to wear these so you can he...oh...derp." :laugh2:
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
This is not about being worry. This is about my stand on "WE THE DEAF", and that means for every Deaf people that I stand up for rather than for myself.

You have nothing to to be sorry about. I have no idea what the teacher or
OP is trying find out but I find this very disturbing that any teacher would tell their students to go out and ask these kind of questions , it show a lack of respect to the Deaf and HOH community and it also show that there is still a lot of work that still need to be done to eduction the hearing population.
 

RandomHearie

New Member
I am hearing, so the deaf posters might think I have no place to say anything, but I believe everyone is being extremely hard on this girl. Why not just take the opportunity to provide a definitive answer to her question and explain your answer, instead of criticizing her, for something of which she has no control over. I just had to write and Explanatory Synthesis (4-6 paragraphs and minimum 500 words in length) about the debate of whether or not ghosts are real, and I could only use 2 specific articles from and Opposing Viewpoints database at my school's library. I personally don't see how her questions are offensive, I think that by having a hearing student delve into the ideas behind those questions, can be very helpful in allowing the student to better understand the deaf perspective on cultural issues of both past and present. I think all of you who are being rather mean to her, should just stop and and answer her questions with straightforward answers. By treating her the way some have on here, you are in essence becoming the exact people who have treated you bad. There are no double standards, this is a free, open forum, and everyone has the right to post questions. I could understand being upset and offended if she post something like, "I think deaf people should not be allowed to marry other deaf people. AND. I think deaf people should not be allowed to have kids if they could know that their child would be deaf." ( now do not jump my throat, I'm just giving an example of an offensive statement.) How are hearing people supposed to know what the opinions of deaf people are if when they ask questions they are treated in this manner. I also had to write a journal entry about an essay that said TORTURE should be legal in certain situations in the justice system, the essay was from a long time ago, and our teacher asked use to consider that essay if it had been written in this day in time or how it relates to today, and if we agreed with the opinion of the author.
Any issue has a wide range of possible positions you could take on it. Some are considered "middle of the road" and some are considered "radical" while others are simply outside the range of views people are "allowed" to have on the issue. Reasonable people can argue in favor of Obamacare on the grounds that health care is a universal right; reasonable people can argue against it on the grounds that it's socialist and erodes individual freedoms. Reasonable people cannot argue in favor of a plan to give out free pencil sharpeners to sick people instead and to fund the pencil sharpeners with money raised by having the President release a CD of his own original songs performed by him on the grounds that their dog prefers pencil sharpeners and their dog should be the supreme arbiter of American health care policy.

Sometimes, the unreasonable stance is considered unreasonable because it's ridiculous, but sometimes it's unreasonable because it fundamentally compromises the group's accepted morality. For instance, replacing Obamacare with a plan to jettison all sick people into space, or to kill everyone who gets a cold, would fundamentally compromise the morality of the group debating the issue (the American people).

If a person proposes something in all seriousness, and is treated as if what they've said is reasonable, or is answered reasonably, it can act to shift the range of "acceptable" opinions in that direction. Maybe after people give reasoned and calm answers to my suggestion that we euthanize everyone who catches a cold, it won't seem out of place to suggest we kill people with cancer.

So, in a public forum, dogpiling people like this can seem much more reasonable than taking any risk of letting the debate move further in that direction. They're trying to send the message that this issue is SO resolved that even raising the question again is unacceptable, and that the entire spectrum of reasonable beliefs about deafness is more accepting than this, that even a typical "fringe" audist position is more accepting than this.

That's not necessarily fair to the OP, but you can't expect people to take the risk that by being calm and reasoned, they could accidentally make it seem like it's reasonable to wonder whether they should be denied basic civil rights. They're rationally putting the interests of their community over one hearie's feelings. Because there would be a lot more people's feelings hurt a lot worse than this if discourse shifted enough that "deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry" became an acceptable or even mainstream position.

Would it be nicer if this were a situation where the OP could be set straight more calmly and politely, with less sarcasm and anger? Yes. But it isn't, and this dogpiling isn't for the OP's benefit. It's for anyone else who might come read this thread and see how the group reacts to extreme audism.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted

JClarke said:
I am deaf and I am married to my deaf wife, problem?
Oh no! Shock! Now you've gone and done it! Call the army in! Stop them! Lock them up! Shall I go on....(not).
 
Any issue has a wide range of possible positions you could take on it. Some are considered "middle of the road" and some are considered "radical" while others are simply outside the range of views people are "allowed" to have on the issue. Reasonable people can argue in favor of Obamacare on the grounds that health care is a universal right; reasonable people can argue against it on the grounds that it's socialist and erodes individual freedoms. Reasonable people cannot argue in favor of a plan to give out free pencil sharpeners to sick people instead and to fund the pencil sharpeners with money raised by having the President release a CD of his own original songs performed by him on the grounds that their dog prefers pencil sharpeners and their dog should be the supreme arbiter of American health care policy.

Sometimes, the unreasonable stance is considered unreasonable because it's ridiculous, but sometimes it's unreasonable because it fundamentally compromises the group's accepted morality. For instance, replacing Obamacare with a plan to jettison all sick people into space, or to kill everyone who gets a cold, would fundamentally compromise the morality of the group debating the issue (the American people).

If a person proposes something in all seriousness, and is treated as if what they've said is reasonable, or is answered reasonably, it can act to shift the range of "acceptable" opinions in that direction. Maybe after people give reasoned and calm answers to my suggestion that we euthanize everyone who catches a cold, it won't seem out of place to suggest we kill people with cancer.

So, in a public forum, dogpiling people like this can seem much more reasonable than taking any risk of letting the debate move further in that direction. They're trying to send the message that this issue is SO resolved that even raising the question again is unacceptable, and that the entire spectrum of reasonable beliefs about deafness is more accepting than this, that even a typical "fringe" audist position is more accepting than this.

That's not necessarily fair to the OP, but you can't expect people to take the risk that by being calm and reasoned, they could accidentally make it seem like it's reasonable to wonder whether they should be denied basic civil rights. They're rationally putting the interests of their community over one hearie's feelings. Because there would be a lot more people's feelings hurt a lot worse than this if discourse shifted enough that "deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry" became an acceptable or even mainstream position.

Would it be nicer if this were a situation where the OP could be set straight more calmly and politely, with less sarcasm and anger? Yes. But it isn't, and this dogpiling isn't for the OP's benefit. It's for anyone else who might come read this thread and see how the group reacts to extreme audism.
I understand what you are saying...but why not take this opportunity to spread insight and to inform ignorant people, rather than just reacting in a hostile way. I don't agree with her question, but if this was an assignment, who are we to begrudge her, yes she could have said something to her instructor when he gave the assignment(and we don't know if she did or didn't), but a lot of times, especially in college, they don't care, when they assign something that's it, no exchanges. Now either her college instructor is an ignoramus who has been under a rock for many, many years....or he is trying to teach a lesson, that few instructors care about...maybe by having her do this assignment in this manor she will learn how to correctly approach topics of great opposition in any social setting. Perhaps, she is normally a shy person or maybe she has been an ignorant person in the past and by doing this assignment the teacher hopes she will become more educated on how discuss hot topics in the Deaf Community. Anything is possible and even though I don't agree with her teacher or they way she handled her post on here, I don't think it is right to assume the worst about a person, especially when Deaf people don't won't Hearing people to assume the worst of them. REMEMBER THIS SAYING: To ASSUME is to make an ASS out of U and Me.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted

Sweet_Candice86 said:
RandomHearie said:
Any issue has a wide range of possible positions you could take on it. Some are considered "middle of the road" and some are considered "radical" while others are simply outside the range of views people are "allowed" to have on the issue. Reasonable people can argue in favor of Obamacare on the grounds that health care is a universal right; reasonable people can argue against it on the grounds that it's socialist and erodes individual freedoms. Reasonable people cannot argue in favor of a plan to give out free pencil sharpeners to sick people instead and to fund the pencil sharpeners with money raised by having the President release a CD of his own original songs performed by him on the grounds that their dog prefers pencil sharpeners and their dog should be the supreme arbiter of American health care policy.

l]Sometimes, the unreasonable stance is considered unreasonable because it's ridiculous, but sometimes it's unreasonable because it fundamentally compromises the group's accepted morality. For instance, replacing Obamacare with a plan to jettison all sick people into space, or to kill everyone who gets a cold, would fundamentally compromise the morality of the group debating the issue (the American people).
]
If a person proposes something in all seriousness, and is treated as if what they've said is reasonable, or is answered reasonably, it can act to shift the range of "acceptable" opinions in that direction. Maybe after people give reasoned and calm answers to my suggestion that we euthanize everyone who catches a cold, it won't seem out of place to suggest we kill people with cancer.


]So, in a public forum, dogpiling people like this can seem much more reasonable than taking any risk of letting the debate move further in that direction. They're trying to send the message that this issue is SO resolved that even raising the question again is unacceptable, and that the entire spectrum of reasonable beliefs about deafness is more accepting than this, that even a typical "fringe" audist position is more accepting than this.


That's not necessarily fair to the OP, but you can't expect people to take the risk that by being calm and reasoned, they could accidentally make it seem like it's reasonable to wonder whether they should be denied basic civil rights. They're rationally putting the interests of their community over one hearie's feelings. Because there would be a lot more people's feelings hurt a lot worse than this if discourse shifted enough that "deaf people shouldn't be allowed to marry" became an acceptable or even mainstream position.


Would it be nicer if this were a situation where the OP could be set straight more calmly and politely, with less sarcasm and anger? Yes. But it isn't, and this dogpiling isn't for the OP's benefit. It's for anyone else who might come read this thread and see how the group reacts to extreme audism.

I understand what you are saying...but why not take this opportunity to spread insight and to inform ignorant people, rather than just reacting in a hostile way. I don't agree with her question, but if this was an assignment, who are we to begrudge her, yes she could have said something to her instructor when he gave the assignment(and we don't know if she did or didn't), but a lot of times, especially in college, they don't care, when they assign something that's it, no exchanges. Now either her college instructor is an ignoramus who has been under a rock for many, many years....or he is trying to teach a lesson, that few instructors care about...maybe by having her do this assignment in this manor she will learn how to correctly approach topics of great opposition in any social setting. Perhaps, she is normally a shy person or maybe she has been an ignorant person in the past and by doing this assignment the teacher hopes she will become more educated on how discuss hot topics in the Deaf Community. Anything is possible and even though I don't agree with her teacher or they way she handled her post on here, I don't think it is right to assume the worst about a person, especially when Deaf people don't won't Hearing people to assume the worst of them. REMEMBER THIS SAYING: To ASSUME is to make an ASS out of U and Me.
The OP made it clear her own views on the questions she gave: 'How is it 'evil'? And 'How is it offensive'? Giving credence to such absurdity. My thoughts, I share with several other posters here - the assignment was given, most likely, purely to evoke a reaction, but it certainly does not justify such an assignment. It is downright shameful.
 
Last edited:

RandomHearie

New Member
I understand what you are saying...but why not take this opportunity to spread insight and to inform ignorant people, rather than just reacting in a hostile way. I don't agree with her question, but if this was an assignment, who are we to begrudge her, yes she could have said something to her instructor when he gave the assignment(and we don't know if she did or didn't), but a lot of times, especially in college, they don't care, when they assign something that's it, no exchanges. Now either her college instructor is an ignoramus who has been under a rock for many, many years....or he is trying to teach a lesson, that few instructors care about...maybe by having her do this assignment in this manor she will learn how to correctly approach topics of great opposition in any social setting. Perhaps, she is normally a shy person or maybe she has been an ignorant person in the past and by doing this assignment the teacher hopes she will become more educated on how discuss hot topics in the Deaf Community. Anything is possible and even though I don't agree with her teacher or they way she handled her post on here, I don't think it is right to assume the worst about a person, especially when Deaf people don't won't Hearing people to assume the worst of them. REMEMBER THIS SAYING: To ASSUME is to make an ASS out of U and Me.
The questions asked were:

1. Should deaf people be allowed to marry other deafs?
2. Should deaf people be allowed to reproduce if they know that their children will be deaf?
They've been answered, and the answers boil down to "so much yes that even considering any other possibility is outside what the group expects to see or will tolerate, to the point that it's considered worthy of punishment by shaming and ostracism to raise the question."

The OP might have wanted to know why this community feels that way. That got answered, too:

Well, if Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Kim Kardashin are allowed to marry despite being screw ups, what possible basis would they have to prevent anyone else?
Do you, OP, understand how incredibly dehumanizing it is to ask if we should be allowed to reproduce or marry? By asking if it should be legal to produce a Deaf baby, what you're really asking is "should deaf/hh people be allowed to exist?" "Is it better to never be born than to be born deaf/hh?" "Do deaf/hh people contribute enough to society for us superior hearing people to let them live amongst us?" Our existences are not worthless; far from it, actually. We have lives and jobs, and family and friends who care deeply about us despite what you see as our heinous defect.
First, not all causes of deafness are hereditary, so any attempt to "breed it out" of the human race would not just be wrong, it would also be futile. There are many posters on this very forum that are deaf because of rubella, scarlet fever, ear infections, injuries etc.etc. So deafness would still exist even if the deaf no longer bred with each.
Getting married and having kids is not a privilege, like getting a driver's license or being allowed to teach in a public school! It is a fundamental (albeit implicit) right of the people that they may choose to exercise.
And the OP asked what was evil and offensive in the question, which has also been answered:

You realize these questions are as offensive as asking:

"Should black people be allowed to marry other blacks?"

or

"Should black people be allowed to reproduce if they know that their children will be black?"
you are just like Hitler with eugenics,
She needs to think more that we are human, just like her.
Supposed I am at Gally, and a ignorant Deaf professor wants me to write essays on how idiot hearing people are and make me go out and do research on how idiot hearing people are, image that I said to hearing people on public forum "I don't mean to be offensive, why you hearing people are that idiot?" Would that still be appropriate?
I think it's quite obvious that if someone told me that I could not marry or have children because of the likelihood that I could pass this on it would be inherently wrong.
So, OP, you just went on a forum of mostly deaf (and largely Deaf) people and asked "is deafness horrible enough that we can treat you like second-class citizens in order to avoid having more of you in the next generation?"
The OP's questions have all been answered. They've just been answered rudely. And the rudeness is part of this group's chosen PR strategy to present themselves to hearing people, at least so far as the group can be said to have a single strategy at all.

If the OP is willing to listen, s/he will definitely be more informed now. S/he will have learned about the causes of deafness, its age of onset, some stuff about people's rights and treating people like people, a lot of meta stuff about how arguments work (that's my fault) and that, yes, deaf people should be "allowed" to marry. And as long as s/he is going to be in a deaf space, s/he needs to check his/her hearing privilege and listen without tone-policing or arguing, like any majority/privileged person entering a minority/marginalized space. That means accepting the possibility of saying something really offensive and accepting that people may choose to be rude when they call you out.

Could the whole group change its PR strategy to be more in line with what you suggest? Probably. Should they? That's for them to decide, not a couple of hearing people for whom the question is largely academic.
 
Top