AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Idol worship (Reagan, Bush) may be a requirement of conservatism, but it isn't of modern liberalism.
Agreed. And I'm not a Republican...
Idol worship (Reagan, Bush) may be a requirement of conservatism, but it isn't of modern liberalism.
Can couples whose children are delivered via C-section be called "parents" too since their children have not been anointed by vagina?
I'm sure this is some sort of awesome Ackbarian trap, but I'll bite. I dont classify myself as any particular denomination. I'm sure some of my reasoning falls into the secular humanist realm, but I prefer to just think of myself as an individual who bases his actions on fairness to others with a deep sense of empathy. I dont shoehorn my actions into what I think would fit into the framework of my particular 'denomination'. I'll also add that I'm not athiest, but rather agnostic (and not even a hardline teapot agnostic).
Let it be known then that adoptive parents are really not "parents" at all. Too bad for you, Joseph!
Much of this tangent seems to boil down to whether or not you think there is value in gender roles at all. For those that don't - they see no problem with gay adoption. Those that do are concerned that "gender identity" will be a problem with the kid.
oh, and AEON, i didnt notice your avatar before. I hope you got my Ackbar reference
I wouldn't let Adam Lambert babysit my children.
Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.What about single parents?
Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.
a good Postmodernist loves to destroy the meaning of - well - just about anything. A is not A
There was a link I posted that said studies have been done that disproved the notion that same sex couple's children have gender identity issues
Diamond, relinquish your sash and tiara. The thread has a new drama queen.
Oh Lord help us. (Pun.) What part of "I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents" do you not understand?
But biologically speaking, the way we have evolved (or were created, depending on your particular cup of tea) is reproduction through the pairing of opposite-sex mates. Can you really so easily and casually discount the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinism plays in conception?
Some would argue that kids do in fact suffer in this situation as well.
I know there are exceptions. In discussions like this, I'm someone that enjoys searching for the patterns for the way things ought to be (like Plato's Realm of Ideas and Forms).
One of the unfortunate aspects of Postmodernism is that debate essentially is impossible - because in order to have a healthy debate - we must agree on a "common language" - a good Postmodernist loves to destroy the meaning of - well - just about anything. A is not A
I do, do you?
So if a man and woman don't want to have kids they should just "cohabitate"?
I know you don't believe that. See what I mean about miles of circles?
You and Oscar should get together and start a science bashing thread.In today's politically charged atmosphere - and considering the outrage that would follow - what scientist would dare publish anything but that result?
And if human beings are social creatures, who learn sociologically, where do you think we learn gender roles from? Certainly from the village you espouse; but first and foremost, from our families. Everything we understand about male and female sexuality comes first from our parents; it only takes a cursory reading of Freud to get that. So don't you think that it might be kind of valuable for girls to learn femininity from their mothers, and masculinity from their fathers? Obama sure thinks so, and he quotes some pretty significant statistics to back him up. Kids need mothers and fathers in healthy marriages -- and boys, in particular, need fathers. I'm not sure what's so controversial about this particular point.
I'm someone that enjoys searching for the patterns for the way things ought to be (like Plato's Realm of Ideas and Forms).
In the Republic Plato abolishes the family for the guardians, to avoid nepotism and amassing of private wealth (Republic, bk. 5, 464). Wives and children are to be held in common by all, and no parent is to know his own child nor any child his parents–"provided it can be done" (Republic, bk. 5, 457). In the Laws Plato allows family raising for all citizens, with restrictions on child rearing and inheritance (Laws, bk. 5, sec.729). Each family is to have only one heir, to avoid subdivision of the agrarian lots into small parcels. In cases where there is more than one child, the head of the family should marry off the females and the males he must present for adoption to those citizens who have no children of their own–"priority given to personal preferences as far as possible." If too many children are being born, measures should be taken to check the increase in population; and in the opposite case, a high birth-rate can be encouraged and stimulated (Laws, bk. 5, 740).
You fell for my Akbar trap!One last thing, as I think it is unavoidable at this point, remember the Platonic familial ideal? Because it's certainly not the nuclear family.
Plato (427-348 B.C.E.) - The State as an Educational Entity, Family Control - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society
I know, I know. Maybe this "Plato" is too postmodern for conservative sensibilities. Either way, I know an argument in futility when I see one, and I'm too busy to keep going around in circles.
Your comment is all that most people here will need to know about where you stand. It really speaks for itself.
Melon, you are obviously a very bright and educated person. Certainly you know that appreciation for a philosopher (or a certain philosophy) does not mean that you must accept everything of the philosopher.
Oh Lord help us. (Pun.) What part of "I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents" do you not understand?
faith and reason are not enemies.
The entire process of preparing for the arrival is preparing to become parents. And yes, when children arrive on the scene, you have become a parent. You don't grow into one. You are one -- a point President Obama clearly made. (Hell, you start becoming a parent when you get the EPT and you suddenly show up at Kids'R'Us to empty the store of every safe baby appliance imaginable, for a kid who has months and months yet to arrive.) So yes, I can safely say, birthing a child is the core process of becoming a parent -- the defining moment. The one we all point to. That day, everything changed. I know it did for me, and I'm willing to bet it did for just about every parent in this forum. I even remember Bono talking about how the day his first daughter was born, he understood why men would fight wars.
Sure, there are other, much harder, much more complicated ways to become parents. I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents. But biologically speaking, the way we have evolved (or were created, depending on your particular cup of tea) is reproduction through the pairing of opposite-sex mates. Can you really so easily and casually discount the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinism plays in conception?
And if human beings are social creatures, who learn sociologically, where do you think we learn gender roles from? Certainly from the village you espouse; but first and foremost, from our families. Everything we understand about male and female sexuality comes first from our parents; it only takes a cursory reading of Freud to get that. So don't you think that it might be kind of valuable for girls to learn femininity from their mothers, and masculinity from their fathers? Obama sure thinks so, and he quotes some pretty significant statistics to back him up. Kids need mothers and fathers in healthy marriages -- and boys, in particular, need fathers. I'm not sure what's so controversial about this particular point.
Sure it takes a village. But it starts with a family. And I can say with some authority that fathers and mothers parent differently, and that fathers and mothers parent their sons and their daughters differently. My wife and I certainly do. There are innate characteristics to boys and girls that differ wildly, that require different needs. Again, is this really such a controversial point?
No, you did. I was sitting casually by, minding my own business, until you asked the question, "What can men do that women can't?" I pointed out two answers. You disagreed. That's your right. But you're the one who brought it up, dude.
Actually, most people I know these days wait to get married until they want to have kids. So while it's not a requirement, it's certainly an expectation. Always has been, too.
Really? Recognizing differences between the sexes, and conjecturing that maybe there's some value to those differences when it comes to core social structures? I mean, your average science textbook recognizes such differences in primates. You really want to jump down my throat about that?
You're the one who said it, dude. Don't get mad when other people call you on it.
Fair enough, like you regarding the origins/foundation of my Christianity, I can sometimes jump to conclusionsAnd you shouldn't assume that I believe otherwise.
But I think it's fairly safe to say that our vision of "God" is vastly different;
mine molded from a 20th century American Catholic perspective and yours from an evangelical conservative Protestant POV.
This alone should inform as to why the separation of church and state is prudent, as religious freedom, by definition, gives no priority to either set of beliefs, while they are clearly incompatible theologically.
but, by definition, they are opposites.