No. The a priori description is the nature of the union itself.

All other "set ups," so to speak, fall away from this Ideal which necessarily follows from our nature (I think that the natural state of humanity is the family). I'm not saying that every such union is "successful" in the sense that it'll yield positive results, or that every parent is a good parent.

No. The a priori description is the nature of the union itself. All other "set ups," so to speak, fall away from this Ideal which necessarily follows from our nature (I think that the natural state of humanity is the family). I'm not saying that every such union is "successful" in the sense that it'll yield positive results, or that every parent is a good parent.

The nature of a union.

Precisely, so in establishing what is best for the child we get nowhere. One can conform to the Christian ideal of the family unit, but that is not to say it is the best or any better than any other kind of family unit raising a child.

Since every human person has rationality in common, what I have said follows for all men.

If God is Good, and this is the way in which God's goodness is instantiated, we must say that this union is the best possible union for the child, individual instantiations aside.

Yes, and I do have the rationality to reject both the Bible and most of the Meditations.

Even, as per The.'s example, it appears extremely harmful to the child's mental health?

There's no qualifying criteria which determines what kind of environment any child is raised in, no matter if artificial insemination is involved or not! Until you give me substantiated proof (or even a logical argument) which illustrates how children raised by those families which choose artificial insemination are worse off, there's no argument here. You have told me how you *feel* and nothing more. The sperm ad you posted does not logically follow all children selected by the family through this artificial insemination process will be worse off, nor does it logically follow all children reproduced naturally will be better off.

Artificial insemination aside, I haven't seen you present any coherent arguments illustrating how a homosexual family cannot provide the same love and care a heterosexual family can, either.

It's harder to reject the Meditations than the Bible. I wanna see reasons. Nao.

What about The.'s example? It's one set of bad parents. You can't compare worst to best. You have to compare best to best.

Damn, there is none. It is a no holds barred state of affairs. There is no way of knowing. If you think for one second that a child reared in a homosexual atmosphere is going to come out of the environment a well rounded heterosexual male or female, you are living in a homosexual induced nightmare. That is the homosexual philosophy. Breed others of it's kind. This isn't rocket science here. To hell with the proof you want, it doesn't exist. There is nothing to serve as a counter balance that will serve as a way of knowing how that child is treated, indoctrinated or exposed to, especally when it comes to gay men.(which was illustrated by the clip I presented of the FOLSUM STREET FAIR in San Fransisco in which children were present) By the time any harm will be noticed by the outside world the damage will have already been done. If after viewing that clip, you can offer the same rebuttal, you have an agenda that is beyond all understanding and a warped understanding of the atmosphere that is appropriate for the heathly welfare of a child for you just don't care. If I were a young parent under those circumstances, I wouldn't let you within a hundred yards of my child. Damn!!!!!!:letme-at-em:

William

This hate, this disgust for a group of people, I just cannot tolerate.

You wouldn't let me within a hundred yards of your child, and yet you're comfortable with spreading this sick discrimination? William, I'm quite surprised.

Yeah, as if the Folsum Street Fair is something to be joyous about. Talk about digusting. Well, I guess we all have our limits, don't we.
Sorry, we disagree. It is sad. There are just some things I am not tolerant of, and this behavior is one of them. Call me politically incorrect. I've been call worse and in all instances it has been from this crowd. You'd think I would learn, huh?

See ya'
William

Call me politically incorrect. I've been call worse and in all instances it has been from this crowd. You'd think I would learn, huh?

To all it may concern, I am done with innocuous rhetoric that always emerges from this pro-gay crowd in any discussion concerning homosexual and homosexual behavior. I can only hope those who followed this dialog got some measure of satisfaction in knowing a little more of what this group is all about. And I promise you, it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. My heart goes out to any child that is reared in those atmospheres. I will be the first to agree raising a child in the proper atmosphere, whatever that is even as it applies to heterosexual couples, is not easy in this reality. The family structure is has been seriously damaged since the advent of "women's liberation" and I can only hope we can heal that damage before the true repercussion's of the discussions we are discussing here today get totally out of control. It seems, not to sound too conspiratorial, that there is an element afoot intent on destroying all traditional family structure that began back in the late sixties, and early seventies that legalized abortions and pulled the Mother out of the home.

How about Descartes completely abandoning his own system when it comes to God..?

So the 'ideal' family unit produces a spectrum of quality of environments for children to be raised in, from terrible to perfect? Sounds like it has bugger all influence on anything, then.

But you are saying every union that does deviate from this nature (a homosexual family, that is), will not be successful. Correct?

Descartes' being able to offer unsatisfactory answer to this or that is irrelevent. The conclusions I have mentioned follow with certainty. His conclusions are indubitable. If you want to make a claim that some other part of his system fails, then two things: 1. it's irrelevent to the propositions of which I am making use, since they are indubitable. 2. you have to show that they actually don't work.

If we say that this or that instantiation of the Ideal family unit (mother/father/children) produces a bad environment, then we rightly understand that instantiation to fall away from the Ideal.

The hallmark of the criticism is that this particular instantiation is -not- the best. You can't compare best to worst, though.

I'm saying that outside of this union there's no point in asking whether or not it's "successful" or "unsuccessful." The results become irrelevent, since the union itself is unacceptable.

And I think there's no point asking whether or not a union is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", unless we see the results.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I noted.

And I think there's no point asking whether or not a union is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", unless we see the results.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I noted.