You clearly didn’t understand my point Lausten.
Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation.In the United States, the current fertility rate is 1.8 children per female. Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources. Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.
Sterile heterosexuals can't reproduce, either.But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce. :lol:
You clearly didn't understand my point Lausten.Or, clearly you don't realize how your words were received. I suggest you run them by some other people. Maybe the spouse of a friend that you know is involved with social issues. Someone who will give you an honest answer. Ask them what they think. I would suggest you talk to someone in your work environment, but I'd be setting you up for a harassment suit, since you are crossing the line into a protected class and saying something offensive.
Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.Something we actually agree on. The rise of the middle class has been the most effective way to create a culture that places a high value on all of its children.
Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources.And there you go sneaking your narrow minded value judgments into the conversation again. It is not immoral to have a bunch of children. It might be seemingly selfish, like needing someone to work on the farm or to otherwise bring income into the family, but what options does a subsistence farmer have? Or are you implying that gay couples don't have decent values? What are you saying? Do you know what goes on in the rec-rooms of some of those nice houses in the suburbs? nuclear family does not automatically equal good values.
But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce. LOLHardy har har. Lois' point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary. A couple points of clarification. 1) I should have said "Appeal to nature" not "Naturalistic fallacy", otherwise my point is the same. 2) I can't find a fallacy definition that quite fits the statement in the OP, except maybe the "if-by-whiskey" fallacy. Look it up if you don't know it. The name comes from a speech where the speaker didn't really take a stand about the abolition of whiskey, but just listed some things associated with it. He is then later able to say he said nothing offensive, or didn't defend drunkeness, even though he knows his words could be taken that way.
But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce. LOLHardy har har. Lois' point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary. 1. Lausten, you don't think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse? 2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks. 3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct? 4. My point about "fertile homosexuals" was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner's sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.
Your paragraph that talked about things in nature that are dangerous and unhealthy can hardly been seen as a slip of the tongue. Especially since you were typing and could have reviewed your words and took them back at several points without anyone knowing.Why is that a "slip of the tongue?" The point was in illustrating that whether or not a behavior is natural has no relevance to the whether or not society should support or condone it. That was a point well made? No? What is a better and simpler way to make that point then to list a few abhorrent behaviors that can also be argued to be natural?
Are you aware that over 50% or American families are not two parents with their own offspring.Yes, and I find that to be distressing.
It is normal to blend, adopt, be raised by grandparents, etc. And that has been normal throughout history.Sure. And I think that we should support persons engaged in such efforts. But that does not mean that such situations are ideal, as is the case with biological parents raising their children in a supportive and nurturing environment. Just saying that two biological parents with children is ideal is very naive and misleading. Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer, depression or other mental challenges, violent tendencies, alcohol and drug addiction, malnourishment, sudden death of a parent, incarceration of a parent, debilitating diseases of all kinds, learning disabilities, reckless finances and gambling addiction, loss of employment,......The list could go on endlessly. Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with. Most families probably start out as your ideal and then along come the realities of life, like the list above. No ideal situation remains intact for very long. By harping on this ideal, you add pressure to the families that had it and lost it, or never had it and have no way to achieve it. Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children. The reality of our family structures is largely accidental, we can not dictate how it will be. For those lucky enough to happen upon it, I wish them well and hope it lasts. The reality is that the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for children, as a good, solid, healthy relationship for the adults involved in keeping that family going regardless of whether they are the biological parents of the children or their sex, or sexual identity. And every family, no matter what that looks like needs the support of the government, their extended families, their communities, and their culture and society at large. To only support a narrow definition of what constitutes a good family is a moral crime and a failure of family values.
But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce. LOLHardy har har. Lois' point was that child rearing decisions should not be subject to the direct control of government. They can offer tax breaks, regulate adoption, and lots of other things, but attaching those decisions to a marriage license is not necessary. 1. Lausten, you don't think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse? 2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks. 3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct? 4. My point about "fertile homosexuals" was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner's sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals. Isn't an "orphan" an unwanted child? Are you saying they deliberately create children, (orphans) that they don't want? I think it is the opposite. They deliberately create children they really do want, UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?
Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer...I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.
Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don't think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.
Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.Many families attain this ideal.
the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for childrenThe structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.
Isn't an "orphan" an unwanted child?From Wikipedia: "Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent."]
UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.
Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer...I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.
Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don't think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.
Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.Many families attain this ideal.
the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for childrenThe structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.
Isn't an "orphan" an unwanted child?From Wikipedia: "Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent."]
UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal. Of course it's ideal, but how many kids get an ideal upbringing? How do we create a society where all or even most kids have biological parents and a stable supportive famiy? It's becoming rarer and rarer. Wishing it were so does no good at all. Many of those kids are not orphans or even half orphans. They are children whose parents rejected them or who are drug addicts or who are sick either physically or mentally or who are too young or too poor to raise them. Some are the product of rape. What do we do with the millions of kids who are not so fortunate as to have two biologocal parents in a stable and supportive family? Throw them to the wolves? Or do we allow them to have loving adoptive parents who can provide a stable and supportive family, even if they are gay? I know several kids being raised by gay parents in stable and supportive families. The kids are thriving. Would you stop that because it doesn't fit your notion of "ideal"? Lois
Of course it's ideal,Yes! Thank you.
but how many kids get an ideal upbringing? How do we create a society where all or even most kids have biological parents and a stable supportive famiy? It's becoming rarer and rarer. Wishing it were so does no good at all. Many of those kids are not orphans or even half orphans. They are children whose parents rejected them or who are drug addicts or who are sick either physically or mentally or who are too young to raise them? Some are the product of rape. What do we do with the millions of kids who are not so fortunate as to have two biologocal parents in a stable and supportive family? Throw them to the wolves? Or do we allow them to have loving adoptive parents who can provide a stable and supportive family, even if they are gay? I know several kids being raised by gay parents in stable and supportive families. The kids are thriving. Would you stop that because it doesn't fit your notion of "ideal"?I would shoot for the practical Lois, and hope that society would offer its full support. I just don't want us to lose sight of the ideal. It matters for all sorts of things. The case of "orphans" that I wrote of before was in reference to IVF (in vitro fertilization). I was not a case of picking on adoptees.
Relevant to society until we have uncontrolled and uncontrollable overpopulation.In the United States, the current fertility rate is 1.8 children per female. Overpopulation is not a problem of the nuclear family. It is a problem of values, education, family planning and resources. Raising children well is the best way to prevent overpopulation.
Sterile heterosexuals can't reproduce, either.But fertile homosexuals can indeed reproduce. :lol: If not being able to reproduce is the justification for not allowing homosexuals to get married, it is a specious justification. A gay couple can enlist a surrogate mothers and the gay men can both reproduce. Lesbians can use surrogate sperm from more than one male and reproduce. This would have the added advantage, over typical hetero-sexual couple reproduction of broadening the gene pool. But following the reasoning that a State's compelling reason for issuing a marriage license is reproduction and raising children: 1) The State, then, should only grant a marriage license to couples who agree to reproduce and raise their children. 2) Sterile persons of any sexual orientation should not be allowed to get married, unless their prospective partner is fertile, and the couple agrees to use surrogate methods to reproduce. 3) Any couple who have not reproduced within a set number of years should have their marriage license revoked. 4) Women past child bearing age, who have no children under age 18, should have their marriage license revoked and should not be allowed to remain married to a fertile man, unless both she and her husband agree to, and have the resources to carry through with having another child through a surrogate Such women should not be issued a marriage license to re-marry, unless she and her new fertile husband agree to use a surrogate to further reproduce. 5) A fertile pre-op transgender male should be issued a marriage license if a fertile lesbian or straight woman wishes to marry him, and they both agree to have children. 6) If one party of a marriage becomes infertile due to any reason, before they have children, the marriage license should be revoked, unless the couple develops and immediate plan to use a surrogate method to reproduce. 7) Homosexuals should be issued a marriage license, but only if they agree to use surrogate methods to reproduce. 8) Divorce should never be granted to couples who have children below the age of 18, unless it can be documented that the children's well-being is better served by the divorce, than their remaining married. 9) Marriage licenses should be revoked and the children taken away, whenever it can be documented that the parents lack the capacity or interest to raise their children any better than a foster home. 10) Marriage licenses should be not be issued to a couple who cannot document that they have the financial resources to raise a child, or who cannot, at least, document that they cam be expected to have the needed financial or support resources within a set number of years. If the set number of years, comes and goes, and they have no children, their marriage license should be revoked. OR We could just forget all that nonsense and decide that marriage of two adults,who are not closely genetically related, and who love, and are committed to each other, is a basic human right.
society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families? There is more than one type and meaning when using the word monogamy. I found at least 4 types meaning different things. I assume you mean monogamous as in exclusively sexual with ones partner or spouse. No outside messing around. I think you should start a separate thread for that topic because it will only further complicate this already complicated thread. I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.
Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer...I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.
Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don't think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.
Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.Many families attain this ideal.
the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for childrenThe structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.
Isn't an "orphan" an unwanted child?From Wikipedia: "Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent."]
UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal. I don't think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal. The reason your getting so much guff is because you appear to be saying that if that family structure were strictly enforced, all families would magically transform into ideal environments for raising children. You seem to ignore a vast amount of other things that will ruin that environment for children. It is very harmful for children to be raised by biological parents that despise each other, but you don't seem to want to take into account any of the many many things that can poison your ideal and turn it into a nightmare for raising children even with both biological parent present. It takes a lot more than family structure alone to lay claim to an ideal environment for children. Can you give us some numbers on what percentage of kids are growing us in ideal environments but exclusively that fit into your ideal? That means your ideal is met, and the kids experience only wonderful lives with no trauma or bumps alone the way. Hint: the answer should include "numbers" not words like a lot or most or many. PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?
society "does" have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families? There is ore than one type and meaning when using the word monogamy. I found at least 4 types meaning different things. I assume you mean monogamous as in exclusively sexual with ones partner or spouse. No outside messing around. I think you should start a separate thread for that topic because it will only further complicate this already complicated thread. I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake. If the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on. Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women. (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)
I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.I understand that the cause of sexual liberation is something that is in your interest. And that you prioritize sexual freedoms as being more important then the fulfillment of obligations to others in such forms as child rearing.
I don't think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal.Wanna bet?
PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to "own up" to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it.
OR We could just forget all that nonsense and decide that marriage of two adults,who are not closely genetically related, and who love, and are committed to each other, is a basic human right.Yeah that. Every other argument has failed. One of the judges in a state that declared gay marriage legal noted that he has never seen anything like this, where once the legal precedents began to be set and the cases were making it to the higher courts, there was very little argument.
If the State's interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on. Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women. (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)The propagation of a society has not just to do with the sexual generation of children but also with the raising of those children to the stage of independence and beyond. I believe that many of society's ills could be improved upon by improving upon the situation of how children are raised. Impregnating wives by "any healthy man that the married couple agrees on" means the deliberate making of a partial-orphan situation. Without condemning orphans, it is fair to say that there are many problems that are unique to orphan situations. Also, the breaking of the sexual exclusivity pact between a married husband and wife, by definition, weakens the degree of commitment between partners. Subsequently, it weakens the emotional bonds of the relationship, because they are less exclusive, which lessens the stability of the family as a support structure for the children.
1. Lausten, you don't think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse? 2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks. 3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct? 4. My point about "fertile homosexuals" was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner's sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.1. Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior. 2. I said that. 3. Kinda hard to separate those two things. Don't see why you would want to. 4. Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait. And your equivocating with the word "orphan". Technically you are correct, but functionally, the definition of orphan includes the child being without parents. A child that knows its parents from the day of birth would hardly consider itself an "orphan".
Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior.So then we agree that a government should regulate child rearing decisions?
And your equivocating with the word "orphan". Technically you are correct, but functionally, the definition of orphan includes the child being without parents. A child that knows its parents from the day of birth would hardly consider itself an "orphan".I'm not trying to control words, Lausten. That is what HandyDan has been doing. Use whatever word you want, it unnecessarily creates a situation where a child is without one of their biological parents. That is problematic for all the reasons I described.
Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior.So then we agree that a government should regulate child rearing decisions? I don't know what you really think because you have to obfuscate to make your points. The government should protect its citizen by making laws against child abuse. That has nothing to do with the topic.