What is an ideal family?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What is an ideal family?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 03:36 pm
Zetherin wrote:
William,
In terms of artificial insemination, I completely disagree with your views:

What are these "good reasons" you speak of? Why shouldn't a woman be given the opportunity to raise a child if she is not physically able to give birth? I hope you're not implying these women cannot be good mothers. I know of two woman that had an abundance of love to give, but were unable to reproduce, and so they adopted. They now lovingly raise two children, and live happier lives because of this. This "pick a child" thing is positive, not negative. Biology does not define "mother", in my opinion. Actions do, and I don't feel we should deprive a woman of her ability to provide care for a child who may not have had an opportunity to be loved otherwise.

And why shouldn't a husband (who cannot impregnate his wife), allow a child into their family? I'd hope the husband would be understanding enough, that, if the woman seeks to become a mother, he allows her to do so. No, not just allow: Support!


Zetherin,
Thank you for your question. In my opinion there is a psychological and "psychic" bond that can only exist between a Father and a Mother and their child. Though the family is flawed and needs a lot of work, there are no facsimile's that will replace the biological Mother and Father of any child, no matter what the "selection process" is. In my opinion, the reality we have created, it is close to impossible to understand this "universal bond" simply because so many people are having so many children for all the "wrong" reasons. Sperm banks only add to that.

My heart goes out to those women who want children and can conceive them. It really does and the best solution is to adopt a child that already is, rather than bring another one into this world. If that desire of the woman to have a child were out of love, it wouldn't matter where the child came from. IMO and it is by belief to have a child is the prime directive in a woman. Though it may be politically incorrect in this reality to believe as such, I have witnessed on too many occasions the environment of those women who fulfill that need without realizing the responsibility involved and the balance environment needed to bring that child into the world. That's the problem. Even in those conditions where the biological connections are in tact, so many children suffer because instead of strengthening the family, elements in our society are doing all they can to dismantle it for absolutely selfish reasons. God damn it!!!!!!

Now, having said all that, adoption is the only course to take, in my opinion. Though it is a selection process,( I think it is anyway but it shouldn't be), it at least gives a home to a child that desperately needs one. In a selection process we will be biased as we opt for that which we think will be best suited to our needs. When it comes to love, it needs no selection process. Furthermore, let me add, it is also my belief, and a firm one it is, that no child, no child should be adopted by any facsimile of what political correctness today is recognizing as a family that is slowly replacing the traditional biological family such as single parent, and those that are homosexual. I know that is politically incorrect, so be it.

This reality is so screwed up that in some parts of the third world women are having children to "sell" so they can survive. That sperm bank is the male equivalent to that. Both are preposterous, IMO. If a barren women wants a child, there are many to choose from. Consider 1 in 5o world wide. Play with those numbers.

William
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:06 pm
@William,
William wrote:

In my opinion, the reality we have created, it is close to impossible to understand this "universal bond" simply because so many people are having so many children for all the "wrong" reasons. Sperm banks only add to that.


William wrote:
My heart goes out to those women who want children and can conceive them. It really does and the best solution is to adopt a child that already is, rather than bring another one into this world. If that desire of the woman to have a child were out of love, it wouldn't matter where the child came from.


William wrote:
Furthermore, let me add, it is also my belief, and a firm one it is, that no child, no child should be adopted by any facsimile of what political correctness today is recognizing as a family that is slowly replacing the traditional biological family such as single parent, and those that are homosexual. I know that is politically incorrect, so be it.


William wrote:
This reality is so screwed up that in some parts of the third world women are having children to "sell" so they can survive. That sperm bank is the male equivalent to that.


This is all dogma and no philosophy. Can you arrive at any of these truths reasonably? Or do you just reiterate subscribed-to Church views?

For instance, can you show that children adopted by a gay couple are worse off than those born of a straight couple? Can you demonstrate the effect of a woman who uses a sperk bank on the relationship between another woman and her sexually conceived child? Can you demonstrate the equivilence between a sperm and a born child that makes selling sperm equivilent to selling children?

Can you explain to me why if there's such a special bond between mother and sexually conceived child, why a "barren" (do people really still use that word?) woman should adopt rather than conceive non-sexually? Surely non-sexual conception is closer to sexual conception than adoption, and so surely the non-sexually conceiving woman will feel that special bond more than an adopting woman!
 
William
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:33 pm
@William,
Greg wrote:
Hmm; I see how that might be a valid reason.
So are you arguing that excessive masturbation is psychologically damaging?


Not in and of itself. Excessive is the operative word. For the most part, masturbation is a solitary, isolated and personal experience. We are not, IMO, anti-social creations. We were designed to interact socially in a complimentary fashion with each other. People are forced into isolation because for whatever reason, do not "fit" in with what this "society" defines as social and masturbation "is" their sex life, as it were. The more one adapts to the isolation, in all respects, they become anti-social, for good reasons in their minds as they find more solace in that isolation rather than in a sociatal venue. That, depending on how the individual interprets it, can be pshchological damaging, though the act itself is not. IMO. I think it is considered immoral by the church because of it's selfish nature. Nocturnal emissions is nature's way of solving that problem, but considering the persvasiveness of erotica in the public domain, nature doesn't stand a chance. Ha. IMHO.

William
 
William
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:41 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
This is all dogma and no philosophy. Can you arrive at any of these truths reasonably? Or do you just reiterate subscribed-to Church views?

For instance, can you show that children adopted by a gay couple are worse off than those born of a straight couple? Can you demonstrate the effect of a woman who uses a sperk bank on the relationship between another woman and her sexually conceived child? Can you demonstrate the equivilence between a sperm and a born child that makes selling sperm equivilent to selling children?

Can you explain to me why if there's such a special bond between mother and sexually conceived child, why a "barren" (do people really still use that word?) woman should adopt rather than conceive non-sexually? Surely non-sexual conception is closer to sexual conception than adoption, and so surely the non-sexually conceiving woman will feel that special bond more than an adopting woman!


Bones,
I stated in my opening sentence what my belief's are. These are my belief's and I am not swayed by any sort of "politically correct" rhetoric that will alter those belief's. Individual's such as yourself can opt to accept them or decline them. It is your decision. The onus is on you to prove me wrong, and if you do, then by all means I will amend my belief's.

Again, it is my belief Man, Woman and Child and that biological connection is a universal construct and any alternative to that is wrong. Yeah, since the early late 60's and the early 70's elements in our society have been trying to change the definition of this universal construct and there are no universal alternatives, only those that these elements try to create. Personally I am not concerned if you wish to call it "dogma"or what, it is my truth and I sleep really good at night believing the way I do.

IMO, there is no way in hell a child will get the balance they need in a homosexual home or a single parent home or a home where there are no biological connections. Children are not commodities to be bought and sold or exchange on the open market and those who cannot have them, or should not have them should not are not be entitled to them no matter how bad they desire them. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, that is just not the way things are in the world today and because there are so many children who need homes, we have gotten ourselves in one hell of a mess and are force to put these unfortunate children anywhere we can. I believe I know where you are going with this and I will not get into a flame throwing contest here in discussing the right or wrongness of homosexuality or the entitlement of a woman to have a baby simply because she wants one to fill a lack in her life. I explained that, of which you neglected to comment on. I have made my position perfectly on feminism, homosexuality and the child and I will not be swayed unless you can provide ME, with a truth otherwise.

As far as non-sexual conception vs. sexual conception is a moot point as far as I am concerned considering all the "real children" in the world who need homes. To maintain that is a selfishness I cannot comprehend. Sorry. And as far as the selling of one's sperm to that of a woman selling her baby, that shouldn't have to be explained. Just give it a little more thought.

William
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:57 pm
@William,
William wrote:
These are my belief's... The onus is on you to prove me wrong, and if you do, then by all means I will amend my belief's.

You can't be serious. The onus is on me to do no such thing. I can reject your beliefs as simply as you can state them. As it happens I can justify my beliefs to the contrary, but I'm not obliged to someone who may only state their own. Further, I am not the one making any claim of difference between different people. It is no more encumbant for anyone to prove a gay couple can provide a good, loving home than it is for anyone to prove a woman capable of running a firm. The burden of proof lies with you, not I.

William wrote:
Personally I am not concerned if you wish to call it "dogma"or what, it is my truth and I sleep really good at night believing the way I do.

I am glad on both counts.

William wrote:
IMO, there is no way in hell a child will get the balance they need in a homosexual home or a single parent home or a home where there are no biological connections.

Yeah, we got that. but can you explain it is the question.

William wrote:
I have made my position perfectly on feminism, homosexuality and the child and I will not be swayed unless you can provide ME, with a truth otherwise.

Fine. I don't think anyone is trying to sway you. But if I burst into your house and announced "People called William should not be allowed to eat chocolate pudding" you'd probably want an explanation (at least for why I was in your house). That's all I asked for. You've announced your views loud and clear. That just leaves a huge question mark hanging in the air. Are you just reiterating dogma or do you have an actual reasonable basis for this position? Keep your ways, man, no-one cares. But even a preacher on the street will try to explain stuff to me.

William wrote:
As far as non-sexual conception vs. sexual conception is a moot point as far as I am concerned considering all the "real children" in the world who need homes.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 06:41 pm
@William,
William wrote:
Bones,
I have explained it as far as I am concerned. Just not to your satisfaction. Sorry.
William

Okay, I asked several questions, maybe that's a bit much.

Claim: A homosexual couple cannot provide the balance a heterosexual couple can.

1. How is balance evaluated - what is it?

2. How does a heterosexual couple (or this special familial bond that relies on sexual conception) provide this balance?

3. How do unbalanced children then come from heterosexual families who seriously considered having family (or do you suppose all children born of such heterosexual couples are always balanced)?

4. What do homosexuals lack such that this balance is not provided?

5. What are the facts supporting this - i.e. what evidence do we have that children of homosexual couples are less balanced than children of heterosexual ones?

Because in the absence of any of this information, there is no reason to suspect any difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents. I mean, if you showed me that lack of breastfeeding led to imbalance for instance... that's something people can at least understand.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 07:01 pm
@William,
William

I'm not suggesting that you should necessarily answer these questions and thus prove your position to be true. I'm not asking for proof. But a reasonable argument against homosexual parenting based on providing balance should have something to say on all of the above, however dubious or sound, however true or untrue.

On the other hand, if your position is simply received dogma, with no reasonable basis, it is likely you have not considered any of the above and will not be able to address the questions.

I'm expecting zero response here. But doesn't that even slightly tempt you to evaluate your own position? Is there not a little part of you that asks "But why is this true?"

Non-ideologues have to deal with that about everything, from "Can I masturbate?" to "Why does the Sun come up?". But subscription is easier. I'm a Republican, so I'm against abortion! I'm a communist, so I'm against capitalism! I'm a Scientologist, so we're all aliens. Instant, prepacked, pret-a-manger truths.

In a discussion like this we see two entirely different ways of knowing trying to reach some mutual understanding but ending in frustration. The thing is we get your angle. Yours, Bona's, Greg's (at least til recently). We're not thick, we understand where you're coming from. If you can't address the above questions and you do get a niggle, well, I guess you understand where I'm coming from too.

Peace...
 
William
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 09:28 pm
@William,
Theaetetus wrote:
If anyone is interested, I can also start a new thread, since this was kind of hijacked from Greg's intentions. Let me know what it is called, and which posts I should move on over and I can take care of it. It is my duty as a moderator to help out with such situations.

Other than that, I think we killed this masturbation thread by coming to the general conclusion that it is a non-moral act; therefore, it cannot be immoral.


How about: LIFE WITHOUT MOM AND DAD?
In today's world it seems Adam and Eve have been replaced by any number of family look-a-likes. It seems if there are adults and children under one roof it is a good facsimilie to the traditional, biological and universal standard family espoused in some religious doctrines. Is there a bond between Mom and Dad and Child? After all that child is created as a result of that union of between man and woman. But times have changed. It's just not that way anymore. Of course since the child has no choice, it is really left up the the "adults" to decide. Now we are faced with a delimma. We must try and determined if these alternative families are in the child's best interest or the adult's who desire them? it seems nature's way no longer applies as science has provided alternatives to the traditional, universal procedure for centuries use to bring a child into the world. Considering all the children in the world who need homes, now one can buy a child from sperm banks. I think we must consider who it is that contributes to sperm banks; who it is that wishes to purchase a child (I say child simply because it is impossible to have one withour the males contribution) from sperm banks and why those motivations are there that create that supply and demand market? it is quite obvious, considering all the children that need homes is not a consideration. Why?

Research shows, by and large, the predominant market is of the gay variety, who for natural reasons cannot have children the old universal, or traditional way. Yet, their innate need to foster children seems a bit lopsided since they are not in favor of adopting homeless children. Why?
It seems to me something is missing here. I hope we can get to the truth. I can't understand why adoptions is not a consideration. Perhaps together, we can reach those answers.

It seems we don't need Mom or Dad anymore and any combination of adults will do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the child? What do you think?
William
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 02:07 am
@William,
William wrote:
It seems we don't need Mom or Dad anymore and any combination of adults will do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the child? What do you think?


I don't think anyone is saying any combination of adults will do. Clearly, it depends who these adults are. But, no, I don't believe the equation for a loving family is necessitated by the combination of adults being male-female. A female-female, male-male couple could provide the same love and care.

Why are we to assume otherwise?
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 03:15 am
@William,
i think i would define the issues as a question of what comprises the ideal family unit. or maybe what is acceptable as a family unit. you could really go off on various directions with that, including homosexuality, single parents, are all women programmed to be mothers, what makes someone male or female, should some people be prevented from even bearing their own children and when does society have the right to remove a child from its home, whether or not it is living with its biological parents. then there is artificial insemination and adoption, surrogate mothers, and what to tell a child who is raised by someone who is not his biological parents. what are the rights of these individuals in relation to each other and what limits should be set by society.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 04:14 am
@William,
Capability and responsibility seems to be the criteria for even a heterosexual couple adopting a child. The obvious questions are then: (i) Do homosexual couples generally fall short of these criteria; (ii) Should homosexual couples be subject to different criteria.

(ii) smacks of homophobia, and I ain't never seen (i).

---------- Post added at 05:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 AM ----------

William wrote:
Research shows, by and large, the predominant market is of the gay variety, who for natural reasons cannot have children the old universal, or traditional way. Yet, their innate need to foster children seems a bit lopsided since they are not in favor of adopting homeless children. Why?

What's this now? Do you know how discriminated against gay couples are in all walks of life let alone court rulings on adoption? Very few states in the US have explicitly established the legality of same-sex couples adopting. Three have banned same-sex couples from adopting. for the rest it comes down to judges and adoption agencies. Imagine you work for an adoption agency and you get an application for adoption by a same-sex couple. Which way are you going to go? Right, and too many agree with you. Same goes for homophobic judges.

That said, according to the site cited below. 8-10 million children are being raised in same-sex households. No mean amount. Certainly seem in favour to me.

Gay & Lesbian Adoption Rights - Same Sex Adoption Laws
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 06:18 am
@William,
Well, I hope I moved all the proper posts to the new thread from the masturbation thread. Here are some common themes of what has been touched on. What is an ideal family? Are gay couples just as capable of parenting children as heterosexual couples? What about single parent families?

Anyway, take it from here, and enjoy!
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 09:14 am
@William,
i am going to try and take a shot at this. i dont really have any conclusions yet, i am just thinking out loud...

Claim: A homosexual couple cannot provide the balance a heterosexual couple can.

1. How is balance evaluated - what is it?

There is a natural balance between male and female, the obvious qualities being power and compassion, strength and mercy, analytical thought and art, etc. but they are not necessarily restricted to a particular sex at all times.

Every psyche has both male and female qualities available to them, and normally chooses one or the other to exhibit most of the time. For instance, one partner can be the stronger of the two emotionally, but may under certain conditions break down and need to rely on support from the other, who although they are not generally thought of as the strongest of the two, would be able to step in and take over long enough for the other to regain his equilibrium.

I think parents or caretakers of a child need to be able to provide working examples of all the qualities a human being can possess, even the negative ones, because they cant be removed, in order to teach their children how to deal with them within their own makeup and when confronted by others.

2. How does a heterosexual couple (or this special familial bond that relies on sexual conception) provide this balance?

I am thinking this can be provided by any two people, and sometimes it could take more than two people. Maybe it is also necessary to have someone more mature within the family unit as well, either grandparents or uncles, and that would add to the balance those qualities which are not well developed until later in life.

3. How do unbalanced children then come from heterosexual families who seriously considered having family (or do you suppose all children born of such heterosexual couples are always balanced)?

Most people I have seen are not fit to raise children no matter what sex they are. Where our instinct has gone I dont know, but the human race needs to really get this in order. We need to straighten ourselves out first before messing up our kids.

4. What do homosexuals lack such that this balance is not provided?

Homosexuals lack in general validation by society that their chosen way of life is ok. They are subject to prejudices and discriminations in life as are people who marry outside their race or even religion. It is automatically putting a disadvantage on a child to live in a family that is considered by most people to be unacceptable. Then again, if those people who chose to do that were able to raise the children properly and were themselves balanced as a unit, might they not produce children of a far greater understanding than most have yet achieved?

5. What are the facts supporting this - i.e. what evidence do we have that children of homosexual couples are less balanced than children of heterosexual ones?

i am going to leave this one alone. I am sure there are studies, just like there are about single parent homes and poor vs middle class homes. But I dont have much faith in statistics because I know they can be put together in such a way as to support opposite points of view. They can be manipulated.

i am open to all ideas on the subject...

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

and further questions i would like to state as follows:

1. is artificial insemination immoral or unethical?

2. should society not allow even natural pregnancies until all adopted children are placed in good homes?

3. if there is some special bond that can only take place when there is a biological relationship, and if it is necessary for the proper nurturing of a child, how can anyone be good parents to a child that is not their own? and how do you explain the fact that parents sometimes torture, abuse sexually and otherwise, and even kill their own natural children?
 
William
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 10:04 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying any combination of adults will do. Clearly, it depends who these adults are. But, no, I don't believe the equation for a loving family is necessitated by the combination of adults being male-female. A female-female, male-male couple could provide the same love and care.

Why are we to assume otherwise?

Please do a little more research on those qualifications required for recipients who buy the sperm they need. Absolutely no consideration is given to the environment that (in vitro baby) will be born into. All that is required is the woman's egg. If there are qualifications, I couldn't find any. Considering the "sperm donor" is a none existant entity, this bit of information, IMO, separates this procedure from being in any way related to traditional methods in which children are conceived. A process that is slowly being deteriorated in the world. Granted it is not totally understood,and there is much room for improvement, but to rear a child in an environment in which their is no exposure to both male and female coexistence, such is noted by your last sentence, IMO, is a grasp at a straw for their is no validation that will lead one to believe any child will leave that environment and develop a healthy heterosexual balance. If there is any substantiating proof please bring it to my attention. I have seen studies depicting a "healthy state", and I have to ask what state is that; a homosexual state or a heterosexual state. IMO, it is a breeding ground for instilling homosexual philosophies.
William
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 10:10 am
@salima,
Thanks Salima.

salima wrote:

1. How is balance evaluated - what is it?

Every psyche has both male and female qualities available to them, and normally chooses one or the other to exhibit most of the time. For instance, one partner can be the stronger of the two emotionally, but may under certain conditions break down and need to rely on support from the other, who although they are not generally thought of as the strongest of the two, would be able to step in and take over long enough for the other to regain his equilibrium.


Essentially this comes down to two things: (i) a parenting couple need to provide the full spectra of skills and strengths both in support of the child and each other; (ii) some skills and strengths are characterised as more or less feminine or masculine.

It is a common description both within and without the community that in a same-sex couple, one seems to lean naturally to the more feminine role, the other to the more masculine. I see no reason why this picture is complete, but on the other hand I see no reason why the picture of a heterosexual parenting couple painted above is also complete. I will simply conjecture thus: the very balance that is conducive to good parenting is that which attracts two people together. The unification of a couple is the very act of balancing, irrespective of their comparative genders.

salima wrote:
I think parents or caretakers of a child need to be able to provide working examples of all the qualities a human being can possess, even the negative ones, because they cant be removed, in order to teach their children how to deal with them within their own makeup and when confronted by others.

I agree and understand this is precisely what adoption and fostering agencies demand for all couples of any sexuality.

salima wrote:

3. How do unbalanced children then come from heterosexual families who seriously considered having family (or do you suppose all children born of such heterosexual couples are always balanced)?

Most people I have seen are not fit to raise children no matter what sex they are. Where our instinct has gone I dont know, but the human race needs to really get this in order. We need to straighten ourselves out first before messing up our kids.


Agreed. William's argument against same-sex couples parenting is the Church line by rote whichdepends exclusively on the notion that the presence of both mother and father leads to a balanced and happy upbringing. Given the large sample available, this is easy to test and the argument is not more supported than unsupported. 50% of children have an above average upbringing, 50% below average. That's about the most you can say, and that says nothing at all. The only way to support the argument is to allow homosexual couples to raise children and make comparisons between children raised by different sexually-oriented parents. However the only people who doubt the equivilence of these parenting couples are the very people who wish to forbid homosexual couples from parenting, thus denying anyone the chance to know whether this seemingly plucked-from-thin-air argument might have any basis in fact. That's a pretty sure sign that it does not.

salima wrote:
4. What do homosexuals lack such that this balance is not provided?

Homosexuals lack in general validation by society that their chosen way of life is ok. They are subject to prejudices and discriminations in life as are people who marry outside their race or even religion. It is automatically putting a disadvantage on a child to live in a family that is considered by most people to be unacceptable.


By far the most intelligent argument against homosexual couples parenting at the present time that we're likely to ever see. A homosexual couple can provide as strong, supportive and loving an environment as possible - that still doesn't change the fact that in a homophobic world that child will suffer terribly even if they are a raging hetero.

At first glance, I could see the argument for first preparing a world in which homosexual parents is not a major disadvantage, then allowing homsexual couples to parent. However, even this argument is prejudiced. By examining only suffering in terms of being subjected to homophobic attacks, we bias the conclusions. By considering a wider range of conditions thatwould increase the probability or magnitude of suffering of a prospective child, we would necessarily have to prescript outside of homosexual parenting. We should, for instance, ban childbirth completely in Northern Ireland on the grounds that religious intolerance will disadvantage that child. No-one would consider such a measure, and to apply it only to children of homosexual couples is negative discrimination.

salima wrote:
5. What are the facts supporting this - i.e. what evidence do we have that children of homosexual couples are less balanced than children of heterosexual ones?

i am going to leave this one alone. I am sure there are studies, just like there are about single parent homes and poor vs middle class homes. But I dont have much faith in statistics because I know they can be put together in such a way as to support opposite points of view. They can be manipulated.


The point is that, for the above reasons I stated, those who need such information in support of their argument are those who are most against such studies being possible, and those, I dare say, most likely to reject any conclusion contrary to their argument. Since the argument against same-sex couples parenting cannot be born from any studies, they are not arrived out from any observation of how the world is, but from an ideal of how the world should be in their opinion. There can be no evidence to the contrary, only evidence in support of that position.

---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

William wrote:
IMO, it is a breeding ground for instilling homosexual philosophies.

Yeah, they just want to gay us up.

Do we have a homosexual philosophies forum?
 
William
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 10:30 am
@William,
Bones comment:
"William's argument against same-sex couples parenting is the Church line by rote and depends exclusively on the notion that the presence of both mother and father leads to a balanced and happy upbringing".

That is not William's argument and never has been. At no time have I ever referred to any church doctrine. I have often referred to a "universal construct", but it is in no way aligned with any religious doctine. I do not dismiss all we can learn from those views espoused by those doctrines. That is willful ignorance. Everytime any mention is made to attempt to develop any kind of moral construct, religion as if all it stands for, is dumped into the drain. I am not that naive or ignorant or egotistical. Please if you are going to effort to understand what I mean, please don't substitute those words that only satisfy your ego to do it.
Thanks,
William
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 10:40 am
@William,
William - I didn't mean to suggest you were directly quoting the Church, but that your position is the same. I've asked you to explain your claims more fully. In the meantime, I looked to explanations given by others for the same claim. I still look forward to your response to the above questions - be certain, I am not substituting the Church's justification for yours. I hope that appeases you and you no longer feel upset by that comment.

EDIT: I've edited the offending post for clarification. It did read as per William's interpretation rather than my intention. My bad.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 10:49 am
@William,
This is the Ideal Family, and none other:

Matthew 3:16-17 wrote:
And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 11:04 am
@William,
Though we do not have all the answers, we cannot ignore the universal construct and how it works. The universe works. How it works, no one really knows. But all life with the exception of some really strange life form's are brought into creations by male/female sexual intercourse. Now without getting into "sexology 101", I will take it for granted everyone knows what that means. This union was not planned by us. Now who or what put the Earthly game together is a subject of much controversy.

What is important to know and I think to take into consideration is the Man/woman thing is a well accepted and, I might add, a well practiced thing world wide simply by the fact that there are now between 61/2 to 7 billion people existing here. From that alone, it seems the sexual union of a man and a woman, is doing what it was designed to do: have more humans. We call them babies, then children, then teenagers, then adults, then senior citizens then dead. That's life as we know it and it has been going on for arguably around 5000 years. From what we can empirically gather anyway. Although some scientific research conclude a much longer time.

What must be asked is, should there be an effort to change the Male/female thing in that for reasons we will not get into now, the resources on the planet and the people who live here seem to be out of balance--too many people and not enough resources to sustain them all. Whether it is indeed true or not is a subject perhaps we can discuss in another thread. Also, there is a extremely small segment of our population that are antagonistic to the male/female universal paradigm, who for reasons that have not been determined, can only find solace with members of the same sex. Is this a natural progression of mankind considering over population, or just an anomaly? This is what this discussion is all about. It is a fact, that these individuals cannot have offspring engaging in any type of sexual union amongst themselves. Yet, there are lower lifeforms that can. But those are "not human". Please, if we can let's stick with the "human being" as much as we can.

It is also important to note as far as the sexual intercourse itself, the human being is the only lifeform here, at least from what I know anyway, that does not have that particular part of the male/female relationship called sexual intercourse taken care of for them as the majority of lesser lifeforms do. (Such as a dog in heat) It seems the female human being has jurisdiction there and it is a matter of choice whom she chooses to have sexual intercourse with. They are not dependent on a particular part of the female physiology that raises a red flag that says "I am ready to be impregnated", like the lower life forms. Now if there was, I being a heterosexual male, I would have known that, I think. So I come to the conclusion based on that simple bit of logic, that sexual intercourse between men and woman falls squarely on the shoulders of the female. She determines if there is to be "whoopie" or not.

Now whoever or whatever (call it a universal consturct) put all this together, for reasons that can be deemed logical, included a special little reward that encourages the "sex act" between man and woman that insures we continue this sexual intercourse process that is essential for the continuation of our kind: THE ORGASM. God, do we all love the orgasm. Wow!!!! That little bit of physiology really works, which in and of itself would explain why there are so many of us. As a matter of a fact, we human beings,as are some other lower life forms, are capable of having an orgasm without engaging in sexual intercourse and that is called masturbation. Reaching that reward, without engaging in sexual intercourse itself. Now this is also a subject that is a little controversial, in that if every one only masturbated, it wouldn't take too long before there would cease to be human beings. So it can be concluded that, for us to keep on keeping on, the male sperm and the female egg have got to continue getting together to insure the continuation of our species. The only problem, those who can conceive conventionally or because it is not their sexual preference, there has got to be away to have a child and keep the almighty orgasm in tact. At least that would be my take on a woman's point of view considering the latter of the two who for reasons only she knows, hates and despises men and the institution of traditional union of man and woman. Period. A typical radical feminist view.

Now, we have devised a way that children can actually be manufactured without actually participating in sexual intercourse itself. The children who would be a product of that research are what we have coined as "test tube" babies or "in vitro babies", which result in the "manufacturing of a baby"; one process takes place outside of the woman's body and the other inside. So we have altered the traditional, universal method of having children, hence the word, "manufactured". Now we are able to have the orgasm in a variety of ways and still have children. Are we smart or what? Children have become a "commodity" that can actually be "bought". And that is precisely what sperm banks are for. Men are paid to deposit their sperm there so women can buy it. All they need is an egg. The amount of compensation the man will receive is dependant on his genetic structure. It's like going shopping for children. Now, because of our wonderful technology that allows us to "design" the child we buy as we can pick and choose the sperm we want, the homeless child, and there are literally millions of them, is pretty much screwed. Hmmm? Are we humane or what? God, bless us one and all. Of course, God, is also another controversial subject as it relates to just who or what God is, often discussed in this forum. I do not hold by religious interpretations, though I do have my own opinions on the subject.

Now you remember that small segment of our population that exist that can only find solace with there own sex. This is good news, although the male side of that segment can only have a child by adoption or if the other male partner has a child by the conventional, universal method, which says, by the way, that lifestyle, same sex, is a matter of choice, though it does not totally eliminate some genetic anomaly, but that has never been proven. It's a mutual orgasm thing, and a "birds of a feather kind of philosophy",IMO.

Now where are we? We have the majority of the world still having sexual intercourse and producing children the "old fashioned" way keeping with universal tradition, which I might add is because of the "thrill of orgasm" in many instances, with little regard to that environment the child is born into. These unfortunate offspring "new people" exist in all cultures and number into the millions as it relates to the nurturing and care they need to grow into well balanced human beings. This, in part is due to the economic structure in the world and many cannot afford to adequately take care of the children they have. Nevertheless the orgasm is still doing it's job. So if one truly has the desire to have a child and for whatever reason can't create one "naturally" there are millions to choose from. Unfortunately the "design a child" procedures are winning, hands down. Allowing the female side represented by the "alternative lifestyles" worldwide an opportunity to conceive a child who have no earthly idea of who the father is. Now here is were it really gets sad. If those women who fall into those "alternative lifestyles" can have a child, then by all means the men should to and allowed to adopt. Put an innocent child in a home where anal intercourse, and God know what else is the order of the day.. God, what a lucky child. The birds and the bees have evolved to the birds and the goats and the cows, and the chickens and the pigs. Hell, it don't matter anybody can have a kid now. To hell with any universal construct.

Now to the meat of the matter. In all my research and in my own mind, virtually no, none, nada consideration is given to the welfare of the child and what is ideal for "them". This has been all about adults and what adults want. As if having a child is no more important than any other commodity an adult desires to possess like a car or a refrigerator custom made to their liking. I am of the opinion, it is the orgasm and the desire for it alone, that is responsible for the awful plight of the children we are bringing into the world today. It seems to me, the insatiable desire for carnal pleasure totally overrides any and all understanding of what is in the best interest to the child. Who in the hell cares? We just want a kid.

Also any critical thought given as to why this universal blueprint exists in the creation of the male and the female in order to have children to continue the species has all but vanished from the Earth. This universal construct that consist of the man and the woman creating a child by "natural" means in accordance with that universal construct that created man and woman has gone totally out of control. IMO

Now I am a red blooded heterosexual male and as all of my kind am susceptible to the lure of the all powerful orgasm and there were times in my life I did succumb to it and engage in sexual intercourse for carnal reasons only. Had it not been for the willingness of the female, those sexual liaisons would have never occurred. If she had not been willing, I would be typing these words from a prison cell. I am extremely lucky those did not produce a child. So I am fully aware of what those male drives are all about. Though I have no clue as to the female drives or even if those drives can be compared to those of the male. But there is one fact for sure, the female knows a hell of a lot more about us males and our drives, than we male's will ever know about their's. Though, in my opinion, one of the strongest, if not the strongest drives in a woman is to have and nurture a child. Take that and couple it with the sex drive of a male, it can be assured there will never be a lack of children in the world. Considering the current statistics and the millions of children born into poverty, of which I blame the insanity of our economic structure for much of that, of which I have discussed on many occasions, we need to stabilize the family structure, not eliminate it or alter it. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature and we will pay a dear price for that too,IMO.

If we considered the child more and that union that is responsible for all of our existence, the universal, biological or nuclear family structure, I honestly feel those "alternative lifestyles" would not exist in the world today. We have created an adult world and we dump our children into it with little or no regard to their welfare. It is because of the lack of critical thought regarding this universal construct,coupled with those efforts by those who represent those "alternative lifestyles" effort to destroy it stemming from a sense of retaliatory guilt associated with being alien to that traditional structure and are creating a more carnal world they can be comfortable in as if that carnality is the only "joy" they get in life, are the matters at hand. No matter how you rationalize it, in all cases, it's the child that gets the #@%^$ end of the stick. Having a child simply to have a child is the wrong reason to have a child. And to have one as a result of orgasmic delight is also just as wrong.

It's all about self and what we as adult's want. The ego gone insane. If you think this "new reality" of buying a child is going to pan out to meet the needs of those who "desire" children to satisfy some greedy or carnal urge is going to pan out, you are absolutely, willfully and selfishly ignorant. I promise you, we need to stop messing with this universal dynamic called the nuclear family and do all in our power to strengthen it, or, in my opinion we will create a chaotic existence of the likes no one could imagine. It is time we put the child where they belong, at the top of list of all our priorities for they will construct OUR future. Remember, Hitler, Dalmer, Bundy and Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski were too, once, children.
William
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 24 May, 2009 11:19 am
@William,
William;64708 wrote:
If there is any substantiating proof please bring it to my attention.


If there is any substantiating proof a child cannot be raised heathily by a family of homosexuals, I'd like you to bring that to my attention.

Quote:
I have seen studies depicting a "healthy state", and I have to ask what state is that; a homosexual state or a heterosexual state. IMO, it is a breeding ground for instilling homosexual philosophies.


What does sexual preference have to do with a person being healthy? You're not sincerely implying homosexuals are sick, are you?

Furthermore, what is a "homosexual philosophy"?

Bonaventurian;64716 wrote:
This is the Ideal Family, and none other:


Please stop your troll antics.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What is an ideal family?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 06:41:15