Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:06:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1621 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
As far as other negative aspects of gay marriage, I would only include
one-- child-raising. I believe that every child has the right to have a
father and a mother.
|
The right? I don’t think children have any such right.
|
“Deserve” a better word? What rights would you ascribe to children?
|
OK, 40 hours on planes gives one a little time to mull things over, so here’s
my take on this.
I think parents/guardians have the responsibility to bring up their children
the best they can. Many fall way short, but many also do a pretty good job.
But I think it is wrong to give the children any sort of idea they have a
right to or deserve certain parentage - this only leads to them blaming the
parents if they fall short of expectations. I believe everyone has the right
to do the best they can with what they’ve been given, and everyone includes
children.
So no, I don’t believe anyone deserves any particular parents.
|
Hear is the $64,000 question for me: All things being equal, is it more
desirable for a child to have both a mother and a father to raise them, and if
so, why? I happen to believe it is better, though articulating that belief is
difficult to logically justify. Of course it’s best to have 2 loving
individuals (as opposed to 1, even) raise a child, but if we are talking about a
loving mother and father verses a loving father and father, or mother and mother
(or any other combination, for that matter), it’s better.
So why is that? Women are different from men; they bring stuff to the table, if
you will, that a man cannot. Likewise, men also bring different stuff, and I’m
talking about stuff at the DNA level here, so when the 2 come together to raise
a child they form a team that is (potentially) superior to any other model.
I see nothing wrong with a society striving for the ideal, and wanting to foster
and encourage the optimal arrangement for child-raising. So of course it would
be better for a child to have a gay couple who loved them raise them as opposed
to growing up on the streets, but that is not the real question. The question
is: if a loving man-woman couple and a loving gay couple want to adopt the same
child, to whom should the child go? The man and woman every time.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Well that's a different question, and I gave my (also difficult to logically justify) view (URL) elsewhere>. Do you believe every child deserves a mother and father? ROSCO (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Although you disclaim honestly that your position is difficult to justify logically, your subsequent statement is still argument by assertion. Let me ask for a little clarification: What do you mean by "all things being equal" in this context? (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) OK, 40 hours on planes gives one a little time to mull things over, so here's my take on this. I think parents/guardians have the responsibility to bring up their children the best they can. Many fall way short, but many also do a pretty good (...) (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
