3 of 8
3
Can anyone else tell how it is ok to post something so hateful?
Posted: 05 November 2014 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 05:55 PM
Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Just having both of the parents of the children in the home will do nothing to combat, infidelity, cancer…

I already conceded this point several times. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Saying that this one arrangement is ideal just adds to the pressure that single parent families struggle with.

I think that there are many noble, struggling single parents who agree with me that their situation is not ideal and wish that their negligent spouses or ex-spouses would better step up to the plate, their spouse had not died, etc. I also don’t think that there is anything belittling about recognizing that single parents have it especially tough, that their situation is not ideal, and that we should empathize with and appreciate the uniquely difficult challenges that they face.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

Two biological parents with children as an ideal is simplistic, useless, demeaning, and hardly attainable for even a short period of time let alone the time span involved in raising children.

Many families attain this ideal.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:10 PM

the structure of a family is no nearly as important or effective to a good outcome for children

The structure of a family effects the outcome for the children.

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

Isn’t an “orphan” an unwanted child?

From Wikipedia:
“Various groups use different definitions to identify orphans. One legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through “death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents”.In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents. This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent.”

Handydan - 05 November 2014 05:20 PM

UN-like those accidents that tend to happen with heterosexual sex. That does produce true orphans, does it not?

A child who is being raised by their biological parents is not an orphan. I assume you mean that there are many unloved children of heterosexual monogamous parents. Again, I conceded that already. But, all other things being equal, a child being raised by their biological parents in a stable and supportive family is ideal.

I don’t think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal. The reason your getting so much guff is because you appear to be saying that if that family structure were strictly enforced, all families would magically transform into ideal environments for raising children. You seem to ignore a vast amount of other things that will ruin that environment for children. It is very harmful for children to be raised by biological parents that despise each other, but you don’t seem to want to take into account any of the many many things that can poison your ideal and turn it into a nightmare for raising children even with both biological parent present.

It takes a lot more than family structure alone to lay claim to an ideal environment for children.

Can you give us some numbers on what percentage of kids are growing us in ideal environments but exclusively that fit into your ideal? That means your ideal is met, and the kids experience only wonderful lives with no trauma or bumps alone the way.

Hint: the answer should include “numbers” not words like a lot or most or many.

PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?

[ Edited: 05 November 2014 11:13 PM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2014 11:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Handydan - 05 November 2014 10:32 PM
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:30 PM
Handydan - 04 November 2014 06:09 PM

society “does” have a vested interest in marriage equality for homosexuals. It stabilizes gay relationships and their families the same way it does for heterosexual families. The same way that stable heterosexual families contribute to a stable society, stable gay families will contribute to a stable society.

I think that you make a good point here, Dan, although I am sure that most non-monogamous persons (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) will disagree with the idea. How would you articulate the value of monogamy, in terms of stabilizing relationships and families?

There is ore than one type and meaning when using the word monogamy. I found at least 4 types meaning different things. I assume you mean monogamous as in exclusively sexual with ones partner or spouse. No outside messing around. I think you should start a separate thread for that topic because it will only further complicate this already complicated thread.

I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.

If the State’s interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on.  Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women.  (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 05 November 2014 10:32 PM

I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.

I understand that the cause of sexual liberation is something that is in your interest. And that you prioritize sexual freedoms as being more important then the fulfillment of obligations to others in such forms as child rearing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Handydan - 05 November 2014 11:03 PM

I don’t think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal.

Wanna bet?

Handydan - 05 November 2014 11:03 PM

PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?

What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to “own up” to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
TimB - 05 November 2014 10:17 PM

OR

We could just forget all that nonsense and decide that marriage of two adults,who are not closely genetically related, and who love, and are committed to each other, is a basic human right.

Yeah that. Every other argument has failed. One of the judges in a state that declared gay marriage legal noted that he has never seen anything like this, where once the legal precedents began to be set and the cases were making it to the higher courts, there was very little argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
TimB - 05 November 2014 11:05 PM

If the State’s interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on.  Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women.  (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)

The propagation of a society has not just to do with the sexual generation of children but also with the raising of those children to the stage of independence and beyond.

I believe that many of society’s ills could be improved upon by improving upon the situation of how children are raised.

Impregnating wives by “any healthy man that the married couple agrees on” means the deliberate making of a partial-orphan situation. Without condemning orphans, it is fair to say that there are many problems that are unique to orphan situations.

Also, the breaking of the sexual exclusivity pact between a married husband and wife, by definition, weakens the degree of commitment between partners. Subsequently, it weakens the emotional bonds of the relationship, because they are less exclusive, which lessens the stability of the family as a support structure for the children.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 04:21 PM

1. Lausten, you don’t think that the government should be allowed to regulate child rearing decisions? What about child abuse?

2. A marriage license has a lot to do with things like tax breaks.

3. When you discuss child rearing decisions in reference to a marriage license, that is suggestive that you view child rearing as a function of marriage. Is that correct?

4. My point about “fertile homosexuals” was not just in humor. Many homosexuals who want to have children for themselves really do reproduce. They deliberately create orphans that they can raise as their own by mixing one partner’s sperm/egg (and/or womb) and purchasing a sperm/egg (and/or womb) somewhere else. Others pay for both sperm and egg (and/or womb). There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.

1. Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior.
2. I said that.
3. Kinda hard to separate those two things. Don’t see why you would want to.
4. Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait. And your equivocating with the word “orphan”. Technically you are correct, but functionally, the definition of orphan includes the child being without parents. A child that knows its parents from the day of birth would hardly consider itself an “orphan”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Lausten - 06 November 2014 06:42 AM

Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior.

So then we agree that a government should regulate child rearing decisions?

Lausten - 06 November 2014 06:42 AM

And your equivocating with the word “orphan”. Technically you are correct, but functionally, the definition of orphan includes the child being without parents. A child that knows its parents from the day of birth would hardly consider itself an “orphan”.

I’m not trying to control words, Lausten. That is what HandyDan has been doing. Use whatever word you want, it unnecessarily creates a situation where a child is without one of their biological parents. That is problematic for all the reasons I described.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Other Quadrant - 06 November 2014 06:56 AM
Lausten - 06 November 2014 06:42 AM

Quit with the stupid questions about obviously harmful behavior.

So then we agree that a government should regulate child rearing decisions?

I don’t know what you really think because you have to obfuscate to make your points. The government should protect its citizen by making laws against child abuse. That has nothing to do with the topic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 08:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
Lausten - 06 November 2014 06:42 AM
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 04:21 PM

There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.

Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait.

I’m not sure about how that is a form of “reverse racism.” I don’t see how the ability of some members of society to entice other members of society to sell their eggs, sperm or wombs can not be an expression of class privilege. The industry functions as a marketplace, according to free market principles. Some can afford things. Some cannot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Other Quadrant - 06 November 2014 08:00 AM
Lausten - 06 November 2014 06:42 AM
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 04:21 PM

There is a particularly large market for these sorts of practices amongst wealthy, white homosexuals.

Nice try with the reverse racism thing, not going to take that bait.

I’m not sure about how that is a form of “reverse racism.”

I don’t believe you

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 06 November 2014 06:11 AM
Handydan - 05 November 2014 10:32 PM

I thought I was prudish, but you take the cake.

I understand that the cause of sexual liberation is something that is in your interest. And that you prioritize sexual freedoms as being more important then the fulfillment of obligations to others in such forms as child rearing.

This ugly accusation really says oh so much more about you, than it does me.

Please demonstrate, without selecting only partial thoughts, ideas, or statements and taking what I actually wrote out of context, how you have come to understand that.

You keep whining about unfair responses to your posts, and yet you have clearly done just that, here.

How about you prove I hold that opinion, instead of just stating it, or apologize for making unfounded accusations. Or do you lack the moral fiber to hold yourself to a reasonable standard?

[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:22 AM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 05 November 2014 01:55 PM

You clearly didn’t understand my point Lausten.

Evasion, does not nullify the statements you are responding to and it does not score any gains for your assertions.

[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:25 AM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 10:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 06 November 2014 06:18 AM
Handydan - 05 November 2014 11:03 PM

I don’t think anyone here is saying that growing up with their biological parents for children is not ideal.

Wanna bet?

Handydan - 05 November 2014 11:03 PM

PS your editing of what you respond to from my post takes what I actually said out of context. You wanna talk about unfair?

What edit(s) are you referring to? I have edited a few of my own posts, but as far as I can tell I have only done so in order to fix grammar/spelling/word issues. I would be more then happy to “own up” to any editing that I have done that may have resulted in a misreading of you posts. Please tell me where that is the case so that we can fix it.

Is “Wanna bet?” is your idea of a worthwhile challenge to a strait froward statement?

What is the purpose of chopping up someone else’s post into only the partial thoughts or ideas that you want to challenge. Certainly it is not for fairness and clarity. Wouldn’t it be far more fair to quote them in their entirety and highlight the portions you wish to challenge? Do you deny that using only parts of what someone said does not have a clear tendency to misrepresent what they expressed?

Can you please do us all the favor of leaving our posts intact for the sake of fairness and clarity?

[ Edited: 06 November 2014 10:59 AM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2014 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2014-03-12
Other Quadrant - 06 November 2014 06:35 AM
TimB - 05 November 2014 11:05 PM

If the State’s interest in issuing marriage licenses is propagation, married couples should be encouraged to completely accept that it is natural and acceptable for wives to be impregnated by any healthy man that the married couple agrees on.  Wives should be encouraged to accept that it is natural and acceptable for her husband to impregnate other married women.  (Legal parentage would remain exclusively with the married couple.)

The propagation of a society has not just to do with the sexual generation of children but also with the raising of those children to the stage of independence and beyond.

I believe that many of society’s ills could be improved upon by improving upon the situation of how children are raised.

Impregnating wives by “any healthy man that the married couple agrees on” means the deliberate making of a partial-orphan situation. Without condemning orphans, it is fair to say that there are many problems that are unique to orphan situations.

Also, the breaking of the sexual exclusivity pact between a married husband and wife, by definition, weakens the degree of commitment between partners. Subsequently, it weakens the emotional bonds of the relationship, because they are less exclusive, which lessens the stability of the family as a support structure for the children.

You really throw the word “orphan” around in a derogative and inflammatory manner to casts shame about. And, it devalues your arguments. Surely there are more objective words in your repertoire. do you also call children born out of wedlock, bastards? You appear to have an almost Victorian era obsession with social class and assigning people to their stations as you see fit. It displays an acute lack of compassion and equanimity.

You whine about fairness and then turn around make unfair statements about others. If you truly value fairness, why do you not strive to include it in your discourse. There is an old idea that “the things we disdain in others, are actually parts of ourselves we are afraid to, or refuse to acknowledge”.

[ Edited: 06 November 2014 01:41 PM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 8
3