Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:40:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1750 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Here is the $64,000 question for me: All things being equal, is it more
desirable for a child to have both a mother and a father to raise them, and
if so, why? I happen to believe it is better, though articulating that
belief is difficult to logically justify. Of course it’s best to have 2
loving individuals (as opposed to 1, even) raise a child, but if we are
talking about a loving mother and father verses a loving father and father,
or mother and mother (or any other combination, for that matter), it’s
better.
|
|
I think that either combinations are evenly good if the parents are loving and
caring. Their sex/color/origin/color of hair/toothpaste they use is
irrelevant and not important IMO. I’ll grant you that diversity is better, but
since we are all unique, I don’t see the sex of the individual being very
relevant here. Just my 0.02$...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
