Please stop your troll antics.

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.

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?

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".

It seems the female human being has jurisdiction there and it is a matter of choice whom she chooses to have sexual intercourse with.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It's not troll antics. The Trinity is the Ideal Family, and all family life must be patterned after it. See the Canticle of Canticles.

It's not troll antics. The Trinity is the Ideal Family, and all family life must be patterned after it. See the Canticle of Canticles.

I'm going to pattern my life after Jonah.

Whale, here I come!

Zeth., as simple as the thing is which I am saying, I'm actually saying something with a lot of philosophical/theological import. Man is created in imagine Dei. Therefore, if you want an image of family life, you must look at Him in Whose image we are made, and Whose likeness we bear.

Definitely theological import, but it's a bit hazy whether it's philosophy or not. "in imagine Dei", I'm not familiar with.

Could it be we are not "made" from any "image"? Could it be "family" can be defined by any combination of peoples, regardless of religious dogma? That a child could be raised healthily in a family that does not abide by the "image" dictated by "in imagine Dei"?

I think so.

Are you to sincerely tell me you're going to base what a "family" should be off of a sole religious text?

I've been mulling a possible argument over. I may use it in the "Deriving Political Philosophy from Natural Philosophy" thread that I'm writing.

I think that it's necessary to deduce that mankind is created in the image and likeness of God, given his intellect, reason, and will. Descartes demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these things are incorporeal in the first and second meditations.

It makes no metaphysical sense whatsoever to say that these things, being immaterial, come from a material principle. It follows therefore that these derive from an immaterial principle, and by that we can only understand "God."

If we're going to discuss relationship of family (including the nurturing of a child) on the grounds of Descartes's arguments for "God", I think I've had enough.

You can't view the family outside of God. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The relationship a husband and a wife has is an image of God's relationship to His Church. The sexual act in its intimacy and fecundity is an image of the way in which God diffuses Himself in the Trinity.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.

The point I am making is that the sexual act is both intimate and fecund. Just as there is a single divine substance, so is it that the Demiurge (I use this word for the Platonic connotations, not the Gnostic) reminds us:



In this way, the sexual act is intimate, for just as the diffusion of the Godhead is co-intimate and co-substantial, the sexual act brings two people together, who are already brought together into "one flesh."

Likewise, just as the love of the Father and the Son tends towards the production of a new person, likewise it is that the sexual act is fecund, and the love of a husband and wife tends towards the generation of children.

And the point I'm making is: I don't care what the Bible says in regards to family. Point blank.

Therefore see and attend (to this), that 'the best' (is) what is simply (speaking) 'that than which nothing better can be thought'; and so is this of which we speak [hoc tale], because It cannot be rightly thought not to be, because 'to be' is entirely better than 'not to be';7actual and intrinsic, substantial and hypostatic, natural and voluntary, liberal and necessary, unfailing and perfect. Therefore unless there be eternally in the Most High Good an actual and consubstantial production, and a hypostasis equally noble,8 as is one producing through the manner [per modum] of generation and spiration - so that there be an eternal (production) of an eternally co-beginning principle - so that there would be a beloved [dilectus], a co-beloved [condilectus], a begotten and a spirated, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it would never be the Most High Good, because it would not diffuse itself most highly. For diffusion in time [ex tempore] into creatures is not but as a center and/or point in respect of the immensity of the eternal Goodness;9 whence any diffusion can also be thought greater than that, namely that, in which diffusing itself it communicates to the other its whole substance and nature. Therefore it would not be the Most High Good, if it were able in reality [in re], and/or in understanding [intellectu] to be lacking.

Therefore, if you can, with the eye of your mind survey the purity of goodness, which is the pure act of the Principle loving [diligentis] in a charitable manner [caritative] with a love [amore], free and due and commingled from both,1 which is the fullest diffusion by means [per modum] of a nature and will, which is a diffusion by means of the Word, in which all things are said, and by means of the Gift, in whom all other gifts are given; (then) you can see, through the most high communicability of the Good, that the Trinity, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is necessary. Among Whom it is necessary on account of Most High Goodness that there be a most high communicability, and from the most high communicability a most high consubstantiality, and from the most high consubstantiality a most high configurability, and from these a most high co-equality, and through this [per hoc] a most high co-eternity, and from all the aforesaid a most high co-intimacy, by which One is in the Other necessarily through a most high circumincession and One works [operatur] with an Other through the omnimodal2 indivision of the Substance and Virtue and Activity [operationem] of the Most Blessed Trinity Itself.

But when you contemplate these, see, that you do not consider yourself able [te existimes] to comprehend the incomprehensible. For in these six conditions you still have to consider what leads the eye of our3 mind vehemently into the stupor of admiration. For there is a most high communicability with the property of the Persons, a most high consubstantiality with the plurality of the hypostases, a most high configurability with discrete personality, a most high co-equality with order, a most high co-eternity with emanation, a most high co-intimacy with a sending-forth [emissione]. Who at the sight [ad aspectum] of so great wonders does not rise up together (with them) in admiration? - But all these we most certainly understand to be [esse] in the Most Blessed Trinity, if we raise our eyes to (Its) most superexcellent Goodness. For if there is a most high communication and true diffusion, there is a true origin and a true distinction; and because the Whole is communicated, not the part; for that reason4 That which is given, is What is had, and It is the Whole; therefore the One emanating and the One producing, both are distinguished in properties, and are essentially One. Therefore because They are distinguished in properties, for that reason They have personal properties and a plurality of Hypostases and an emanation of origin and an order not of posteriority, but of origin, and an sending-forth not of a change of place [localis mutationis], but by the gratuity of inspiration, on account of [per rationem] of the authority of the One producing, which the One sending has in respect of the One being sent. - On the other hand, because They are substantially One, for that reason it is proper, that there be a Unity in essence and form and dignity and eternity and existence and incircumscriptibility. - Therefore while you consider these (conditions) singly through themselves, you have that from which to [unde] contemplate the Truth; while comparing [confers] these one to another, you have that from which to be suspended unto the highest admiration; and for that reason, as your mind ascends through admiration into admirable contemplation, these (conditions) must be considered together [haec simul sunt consideranda].

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.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"?

The., my position follows a priori.

There is no proof, because there is no qualifying criteria to "buy" a child to serve as counter measures to ensure the child welfare is being taken care of. NONE. NONE, NONE

The below is a sales pitch coming from a sperm bank. The web page is "done". What ever that needs. IMO, it is expressly designed to solicit the attention of the gay crowd eliciting the great opportunity if offers for those life styles in which it is impossible to have children the traditional way. Unlike adoption criteria where there are qualifications involve to see if one is "qualified" to raise a child,and support agencies to ensure all is going well, there are no such qualifications here. As a matter of a fact all a gay male has to do is talk some female into agreeing to be the surrogate, most probably a gay female, impregnated with his seed and voila, he's got a kid. There is absolutely no, none, nada qualifying criteria that would determine what kind of environment that child would be raised in. Much like buying a dog at a pound.