Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:56:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Here 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.
|
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? We’ve established previously that men and women are
not literally equal, so surely that’s not the kind of equality you’re
describing.
Even without that clarification, here’s my take: All things being equal, it is
better for the happiness and well-being of the child to be in a loving and
supportive environment. I see no reason why that environment must contain a
male:female dyad in preference to a female:female pairing or a male:male:female
group, for example. You’re inescapably hung up on the demand for a stable,
married, heterosexual pair of parents without giving a reason why it must be so,
other than “oh please won’t somebody think of the children.” The bottom line,
really, is the stable and loving environment; the sex of the parents is
practically incidental by comparison.
| |
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.
|
Why must the male or female role model be a parent? Why could it not be an
uncle or a close family friend? Even if we accept your argument that the child
benefits from access to role models of each sex, you still haven’t demonstrated
why the parents must provide both of these models.
Neither of my parents was a bus driver; does that mean that, as a child, I
suffered for not having a parental bus driver role model? Is my interaction
with bus drivers, as an adult, impaired due to my lack of early exposure? Am I
predisposed to seek out unwholesome contact with bus drivers due to this lack?
Your task is simple: assuming that we accept your assertion that the child
benefits from contact with both male and female role models, you must now
demonstrate that the parents must be the primary examples of these role models,
to the degree that no other male or female outside of the parents can fill the
role adequately, all things being equal.
| |
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.
|
Round and round we go.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) I think that either combinations are evenly good if the parents are loving and caring. Their sex/color/origin/color of hair/toothpaste they use is irrelevant and not important IMO. I'll grant you that diversity is better, but since we are all (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
