Sree, I agree with TimB and I’m a woman. What you said “only a good woman…” sounded extremely sexist. IMHO, my home, when my sons were growing up, could have been better if it were a two parent home, but I married a man who didn’t know how to be a father and had his own problem- thus why I divorced. He flew the parenthood coop after that. It could have been better than what it was. A really good home is ran by two good parents, not one. One can do it, but it takes 100% of the person’s time and energy, with nothing left over. Don’t get me wrong, I loved almost every moment of it, but there were times I needed a serious break. The ideal of Secularism is two good parents, not one, but short of that, one good parent is a necessity. Religion makes women baby factories and slaves to their husband, not good moms.
Lausten: Are you agreeing that you don’t an answer to the question, or are you just avoiding it?What question is that? People can be good without influence of religious moral values? If that is the question,then my answer is a categorical NO.
This is why I made a distinction between evidence of good attributed to humanism, and humanitarian efforts of people inspired by religion. Let’s discuss this critically. I could be wrong and look forward to an objective inquiry into any misconceptions I have on this matter.
Mriana: What you said “only a good woman…” sounded extremely sexist.I am not into psychology and ignorant of labels bandied around these days to identify bad people and hateful behavior. You did say that there were women who didn't help out and give you a break when you were struggling to get an education and improve your situation in life. I wouldn't consider them good women if they refused to give you a break or, worse still, deliberately made life hard for you. I came to know what a good woman is through my relationship with my mom and grandma. They provided me everything from childhood to adulthood. Why would I need a father for? A domesticated man is no role model for a kid drawn by the American Dream. There are no father bears in nature.
Life is tough for us people living in a world that gets tougher to survive in by the day. This is why we need the father to help put food on the table. If I were to run for President, I would provide full assistance to every woman in the raising of offspring till maturity and equipped with trade or professional skills to contribute to society. This initiative is tailor-fit for a truly modern secular society without any irrational religious morals.
What do you mean a domesticated man is no role model? There are many men who raise their kids by themselves because the mother flew the coop and they did a good job, just as a woman would and I think they are good role models. You know, you are really digging yourself into a hole. Yes, mothers and grandmothers are wonderful to learn from, but good men do exist and personally, if a man brings kids into this world, I expect them to help take care of them and if they don’t, they aren’t much of a human being. However, I do agree the female professors were horrible in not helping me further my education, but no human has to continue to think like they did in the future. Those women were a good example on how not to treat others.
The father put food on the table and the mother cook it? Father brings home the bacon and the mother be in the kitchen cooking it? Is that what you’re saying? That’s really sexist and I’m sure some of the men around here would agree. IMHO, it could be the other way around. The mother could bring home the food and the father stay home, take care of the kids and cook the food. OR they could both work and team up together to cook dinner and clean the house. It can be any combination, but no one should be held back or expected to do it all by themselves.
One last thing, people can be better without religion. From what I’ve seen, religion makes for horrible people, even abusive people. One can be good without religion. Religion doesn’t have a corner on morality. In fact, many people with religion are deplorable. Just look at the Catholic Church, for example, or Dominionists currently found in the U.S. government. Or even the KKK.
Sree, screwed up again when he said “There are no father bears in nature.”
https://www.nathab.com/blog/the-9-best-dads-in-the-animal-kingdom/
Nine examples of Fathers in the animal kingdom, who are critical to the development of their offspring. The male seahorse goes so far as to become pregnant and carry the offspring to term.
Human males are adaptive. Given the role of primary caregiver for a young human, it is possible for them to be as effective as a human female. It would be convenient for persons who are bigoted against gay couples to suggest that a man in such a relationship could NOT be as effective as a female at primary caregiving. It would also be a lie.
So I suggest that your agenda, Sree, is to undermine gay male couples raising their own children. Am I wrong?
75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.
I could be wrong and look forward to an objective inquiry into any misconceptions I have on this matter.So far you have made assertions. When you show me something only a religious person can do, we might have something to discuss
Good ones TimB. I totally forgot about those two examples.
Lausten: So far you have made assertions. When you show me something only a religious person can do, we might have something to discussWell, we must then have to clarify what a religious person is, mustn't we? You want to take a stab at it first?
Tim: So I suggest that your agenda, Sree, is to undermine gay male couples raising their own children. Am I wrong?For crying out loud, what the hell has homosexuality got to to with what I am discussing?
Are you gay, Tim?
Sree, what it has to do with is men raising children. Something I mentioned in my post before TimB’s post, but what I’d like to know is, what does TimB’s sexuality have to do with men raising children?
In nature there are many examples of a male adopting a a young, even a young from another species. What is this obsession with “correct child rearing”.
Do you mean correct Christian child rearing? If not then what? I’m getting tired of people who admit they know very little about anything and proclaim grand truths as if they speak from a privileged authority. As long as you pray in school you can eat all the twinkies and drink all the soda you like.
You want to know the results of human ignorance of natural functions ?
Frogs
Researchers have observed frogs spontaneously changing genders in the lab. Now they’re observing it in the wild too, and it’s not a natural process. More and more male frogs are becoming females, complete with fully functioning reproductive organs. The frog-feminizing culprit? A common weed killer called atrazine.Banned in Europe, atrazine ends up running into rivers and lakes where it wreaks havoc on frog sexual development, suppressing production of testosterone (the male sex hormone) and boosting the female sex hormone estrogen. Not good news for amphibian populations that are already declining from climate change, loss of habitat and invasive species.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/animals-can-change-their-gender/frogs
Frogs are an “indicator species” and if you don’t know what that means, I’ll let you look it up yourself.
Mriana: Sree, what it has to do with is men raising children. Something I mentioned in my post before TimB’s post, but what I’d like to know is, what does TimB’s sexuality have to do with men raising children?We were discussing school lunch program and the conversation got hijacked to a picture of two gay guys and a baby. Talk about digressing! It came out of left field. Why would Tim put that up? If a wolf was a party in this discussion, it would also put in its two cents on parenting fitness. (Two girls were raised by a she-wolf in India.) I don't want Tim to feel marginalized.
Mriana: Sree, what it has to do with is men raising children.Nuns can raise children too. There are some 30,000 children in Catholic orphanages in America. Don't you think the best person to have raised your kids was you? I am on your side. If I were President and had implemented my program to provide full support to all moms in raising their kids, your life would have been great without the guy who fathered them.
Oh now you want to change the subject you started when you said “only good women can run good homes” to school lunches, which you also stated for “dysfunctional families”. Sorry, but school lunches are meant for everyone. Always have been, dysfunctional or not, but you also took it to the sexist realm and also to the dysfunctional realm, insinuating that “only good women can run good homes”, which indicates that men, gay or straight, despite being good, can’t run a good home and is thereby dysfunctional and they don’t deserve healthy food because only dysfunctional families get school lunches, which is BS. Thus, you started this, now you need to backup your sexist and bigoted statements. There wouldn’t have been any gay guys with their own children if you hadn’t started with bigotry and sexism, stating “only a good woman can run good homes” and “dysfunctional families” get school lunches (again, this is BS). Exact quote about dysfunction: “School lunches are meant for kids from dysfunctional families” and exact link to your bigoted and sexist statement: https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/trump-cuts-back-michelle-obamas-school-lunch-program/#post-319347
I’ll do you one better and put it in blockquote
Sounds like you run a good home, Mriana. Without good homes – and only good women can run good homes – we don’t have good families; and without good families, we don’t have a good country. School lunches are meant for kids from dysfunctional families. Back in the old days, immigrants were pouring into the country. There were many non-viable families in New York City and kids were left homeless and they lived in the streets. The older ones formed gangs to protect themselves. (Have you read Oliver Twist?) They couldn’t all be fed and cared for by the Children Aid Society and had to be sent out west to pioneer families on the Orphan Train.
Seems to me you were the one who digressed.
And I did raise my sons myself and no you’re not on my side if you believe that school lunches are for dysfunctional families, who don’t deserve nutritional meals. You are not on anyone’s side if you think only woman can raise children, because not every woman is fit to raise children and sometimes the father is the better parent. Humans are not cookie cutters and sometimes one parent can be more harmful than the other, especially if we perpetuate stereotypes. Such stereotypes also ruin the chances for those children being raised by nuns being adopted to good parents. Back in the day, my sons would have been taken from me just because I’m white and my sons are 1/2 black, which is really stupid. I also would not have been able to marry my first husband if not for the Lovings in 1968. So, stop with the stereotypes, bigotry, and sexism, because there’s been too much in U.S. history.
Well, we must then have to clarify what a religious person is, mustn’t we? You want to take a stab at it first?Do you want to keep avoiding the question? Define it however you want. Then tell me how that thing makes it so that a person who believes in it can do something that a person who doesn't believe it can do.
Mriana: Oh now you want to change the subject you started when you said “only good women can run good homes” to school lunches, which you also stated for “dysfunctional families”.There are many reasons why families become dysfunctional. Financial difficulty is what I was thinking of. School lunch program is primarily meant for children of low-income families. It is not provided free for everyone. Do you disagree? Kids from financially viable families probably have lunch bags packed carefully by their loving moms.
Quote below is from Wikipedia.
The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (79 P.L. 396, 60 Stat. 230) is a 1946 United States federal law that created the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to provide low-cost or free school lunch meals to qualified students through subsidies to schools.
Not all kids who have money to pay for lunch have lunches packed by their mothers. Some still get a school lunch even if they have to buy it. Money does not necessarily equal mom packing a lunch for you every day.
To put the subsidized school lunch program in historical perspective, the Black Panthers actually started it and the government thought it was a good idea.
Lausten: Do you want to keep avoiding the question? Define it however you want. Then tell me how that thing makes it so that a person who believes in it can do something that a person who doesn’t believe it can do.As I discovered, the feeding of children in school was started by the Christian minister, Charles Loring Brace. Did God literally order him to do it? I don't think so. What made that man of religion respond to the plight of children in New York City in 1853? Around that time, there was another person who is lauded as a doer of good. He was Andrew Carnegie. He didn't feed the hungry. He built public libraries for the enlightenment of his fellowmen. He, besides Gates, is probably your kind of a person who could do good without God.