UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2012, 10:00 PM   #126
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
No, I brought animals into the conversation to show that it's just nature in general, not human nature.

And how the hell can homosexuality be philosophical? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps I should ask my friend with a bachelor's in Philosophy?
deoxys is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 10:04 PM   #127
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Or you could trust me because I also have a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy?

I'm talking specifically about humans. Animals are reactionary creatures that are driven completely by instinct (at least as far as I know).

I'm not sure how many times I can explain this without just c+ping my previous response. Human nature is concerned with what man is and should be. That means it is concerned with man's actions. Virtue, vice, etc.: ethics. That means that homosexuality, as an action, can be judged from an ethical standpoint, just as heterosexuality and asexuality or any other thing a man can do can be judged.
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 10:31 PM   #128
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I uh... uh...

deoxys is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 10:46 PM   #129
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
So are you saying that actions cannot be judged from an ethical standpoint?
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 10:56 PM   #130
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
No, I'm saying I don't understand this subject well enough to continue discussing it, much less with a philosophy major.

abandonthread.gif
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 11:49 PM   #131
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
Must have been "legitimate rape"
DOHOHOHOHO.

On the philosophical side, let's look at homosexuality from a utilitarian point of view- greatest good for the greatest number of people. So let's do some math! Studies estimate that between 4-10% of the population are homosexual, so we'll use the median of 7% for our purposes. So say 7% of the population enjoys actively participating in homosexual acts, and that is a great good for them. Since they are generally performing said acts on others in that same percentage (or kinky experimenters), we'll say that by itself it is an act that does not impede the other percentage of the population from enjoying their own happiness, and is thus a net good for the world.

However, if a person in the 93% is attracted to a member of the 7% homosexual population the straight person would be unable to enjoy sexual activities with them isn't permitting homosexual acts decreasing the happiness of the 93%? Perhaps, but keep in mind that greatest good for all is in play here. If the straight person would enjoy having sex with the homosexual person, but the homosexual person would actively dislike having sex with the straight person we should likely consider it a wash- by keeping the two groups separate and engaging in sexual relations with those that they would both enjoy sexual relationships it results in a greater good for the world.

What about procreation, though? A homosexual couple is not able to produce offspring, and thus robs the world of the goods in life that those theoretical children could have enjoyed! An interesting argument, but one that is not without rebuttals. First of all, forcing people who don't wish to have children to have children would be a large drain on their happiness, and children raised by couples who don't want to have children are generally less happy in their lives as a result. Additionally, we're to a point technologically where just because a couple happens to be of the same sex it does not preclude them from procreating or adopting and raising a child- some might argue that you are doing the child an evil by giving it two parents of the same sex (and thus perhaps lacking a role model of the opposite sex), but that concern is at least neutralized by the argument that the good from having parents who care about you is better than having no parents- and the fact that the homosexual couple who would have volunteered to raise the child would be doing it because they want to means that it would be good for them, and thus just.

Additionally, some people in the 93% (men) derive great enjoyment from watching two homosexuals engage in sexual activities. This would thereby not only be a good for the people who are engaging in the act, but people who may desire to watch it as well- another bonus for the good of the world!

There are additional arguments for homosexuality being a good for the world, but there is (at least) one counterpoint to my argument- the fact that homosexual people are happy and engaging in sexual acts makes unownmew so deeply unhappy that it cancels out all of the net gain of happiness for the rest of the world, even though no one is forcing him to engage in homosexual acts himself.

Dang, I really thought we had something there. I guess homosexuality is philosophically immoral.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 11:55 PM   #132
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
If only utilitarianism was a good thing =p
Amras.MG is offline  
Old 09-13-2012, 11:59 PM   #133
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Utilitarianism isn't just a good thing, it's the greatest number of good things!

*shot*
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 05:06 AM   #134
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
That argument you are using assumes that man is no better than an animal.
Well... given that humans are just animals like any other this isn't an assumption so much as the way things are. Different animals just have different advantages and disadvantages - chimps, for example, have been shown to perform better on memory tests than humans, with pigs also showing exceptional memory capabilities (as well as being adorbs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
I am saying that if there is a human nature, as in a way that man should be, and that if this human nature is not properly fulfilled by homosexuality, then that is a bad thing. Animals have nothing to do with this.
You know what else is not fulfilling human nature? Civilisation. Homo Sapiens as a species are really badly suited to civilisation. Guess we should all go back to living in the wild as a group animal (think like Gorillas or Lions). That's what we're suited for, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
What's to expand?

Marriage is an institution who's purpose is to preserve procreative sex, which is the necessary base for all families, as well as preserve said families, where both roles, father and mother, are present, such that a child may learn and grow in the most ideal environment.

What people do or fail to do in that environment has no bearing on the necessity of preserving the institution.
Well I was just wondering if somewhere in your thought process there was a logical reason why we're so much worse as a species at procreation than any other animal that we need something like marriage to keep it going where no other species does.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 09-14-2012 at 05:15 AM.
Concept is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 07:11 AM   #135
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Here's the logic bomb I'm about to drop on this thread. Ready?

Hold on to your butts!


AAAAAAND


Spoiler: show
Please tell me why the fuck we should stop any two people who genuinely feel love for each other from getting married other than because the old testament says buttsex is an abomination because the old testament also basically says any kind of sex that isn't vaginal intercourse is BAAAAAD
Except, unfortunately for you, that wasn't my argument. Try again when you can address my actual statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]Not that I'm going to get too deeply into this discussion but the question must be asked.

>...such that a child may learn and grow in the most ideal environment.

UM, find me a solid example of sociological/psychological/what-have-you evidence that being raised by same sex parents causes any significant issues that being raised by opposite sex parents doesn't.
Except, I never said there were significant issues with being raised in a situation other than a male-female two parent household. What I did say was, being raised in a male-female two parent household, under normal circumstances, is the best situation for them. And I doubt you can argue against that without grasping at straws.

Furthermore, if nature intended human children to be raised by same-sex parents, why would nature not have granted same-sex parents the ability to procreate? But instead we have males and females, and only between the two genders can children be born. This is very strong evidence that, nature intended parents to be male and female, not male and male, or female and female.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Well... given that humans are just animals like any other this isn't an assumption so much as the way things are. Different animals just have different advantages and disadvantages - chimps, for example, have been shown to perform better on memory tests than humans, with pigs also showing exceptional memory capabilities (as well as being adorbs).
Humans are very much different than other animals. Our sentience sets us apart from any creature known to man. Humans have the capability of higher reasoning, and thus it is our responsibility to adhere to right and wrong. Animals have no knowledge of right or wrong, and so nothing they do can be judged wrong or right.

But of course, that's a debate for an evolution thread, not here.



Quote:
You know what else is not fulfilling human nature? Civilisation. Homo Sapiens as a species are really badly suited to civilisation. Guess we should all go back to living in the wild as a group animal (think like Gorillas or Lions). That's what we're suited for, after all.
Really? We're bad at civilization? I would assume we're pretty good at it, considering no other animal has ever accomplished it, let alone tried.

We're the best there is.

Quote:
Well I was just wondering if somewhere in your thought process there was a logical reason why we're so much worse as a species at procreation than any other animal that we need something like marriage to keep it going where no other species does.
Because we have higher reasoning, and the choice between right and wrong actions. Every other animal is ruled by instinct, which dictates to them how they will behave, including their mating patterns. If an animal mates for life, it doesn't divorce, and if an animal has children, it will always raise them in the exact same manner, no matter which one it is.

By your logic, one would have to wonder why humanity is so terrible at everything it does, from keeping social order, to establishing dominance, to survival of the fittest (or lack thereof). The answer of course, is the same in every case: Higher Reasoning, Sentience, Knowledge of right and wrong.
unownmew is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 07:35 AM   #136
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
I don't understand. You're simultaneously saying that "nature intended so-and-so" and then you're saying "Humanity is different because blah blah blah." Which one do you mean? If you're trying to somehow justify both at the same time, then how?
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 07:49 AM   #137
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
I'm assuming that everyone here is aware that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom?
Mercutio is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:26 AM   #138
kusari
「Killer Queen No Prog」
 
kusari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a beautiful Duwang
Posts: 2,343
Send a message via Skype™ to kusari
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Except, I never said there were significant issues with being raised in a situation other than a male-female two parent household. What I did say was, being raised in a male-female two parent household, under normal circumstances, is the best situation for them. And I doubt you can argue against that without grasping at straws.
You obviously missed my point. I want you to tell me what is wrong with being raised by same sex parents. I want you to prove to me why opposite sex parents raising them is the best situation. Since we're (apparently) supposed to be trying to convince the opposite side to see it our way, I want you to find something that will show me what you say is true. And don't try to say "nature intended it" because no one is buying that.
__________________
Eternally TL4 4-EVER For All of Infinite Time
kusari is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:12 PM   #139
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
I don't understand. You're simultaneously saying that "nature intended so-and-so" and then you're saying "Humanity is different because blah blah blah." Which one do you mean? If you're trying to somehow justify both at the same time, then how?
I'm saying nature intended for procreation to be male and female. Nature also created human sentience which by allowing us to know the difference between right and wrong, gives us the responsibility to do right. I don't see any contradiction here.

And yes, if you like, you can substitute "nature" with "God," as it's essentially the same thing, a higher power that created us as we are, however it was that we were created, and not as something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
You obviously missed my point. I want you to tell me what is wrong with being raised by same sex parents. I want you to prove to me why opposite sex parents raising them is the best situation. Since we're (apparently) supposed to be trying to convince the opposite side to see it our way, I want you to find something that will show me what you say is true. And don't try to say "nature intended it" because no one is buying that.
There's nothing strictly "wrong" with it, any more than it is "wrong" to raise children as a single parent, except for one thing, and that is the morality it teaches the child.

See, with the law sanctioning marriage as "just about sex for pleasure," the family starts to fall apart. As the family falls apart, children are raised with less and less of a moral compass to fall back on. With less of a moral direction to guide people, citizens, over the generations, become wilder and wilder, preoccupied only with their own gratification (sex for pleasure) than anything "good," or wholesome. And this is when society starts to fall apart and become no better than Sodom and Gomorrah. It oppresses others for it's gratification, and in turn is oppressed by those stronger than it, to it's own destruction.

As the family, so too goes the nation.
unownmew is offline  
Old 09-14-2012, 09:26 PM   #140
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I'm saying nature intended for procreation to be male and female. Nature also created human sentience which by allowing us to know the difference between right and wrong, gives us the responsibility to do right. I don't see any contradiction here.

And yes, if you like, you can substitute "nature" with "God," as it's essentially the same thing, a higher power that created us as we are, however it was that we were created, and not as something else.
You are right. Same-sex partners cannot procreate. But, it makes no sense why this argument proves that same-sex marriage is wrong. Just because man did not evolve(or was created) with a vagina doesn't make it wrong. If you are following the fact that they cannot procreate, then in that argument monogamy and birth control are wrong because they limit birth potential. Which undermines your whole argument on a male-female marriage.

And don't bring up religion. Any serious gay marriage discussion should not have to do with the ideologies of a man from the 1st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
There's nothing strictly "wrong" with it, any more than it is "wrong" to raise children as a single parent, except for one thing, and that is the morality it teaches the child.

See, with the law sanctioning marriage as "just about sex for pleasure," the family starts to fall apart. As the family falls apart, children are raised with less and less of a moral compass to fall back on. With less of a moral direction to guide people, citizens, over the generations, become wilder and wilder, preoccupied only with their own gratification (sex for pleasure) than anything "good," or wholesome. And this is when society starts to fall apart and become no better than Sodom and Gomorrah. It oppresses others for it's gratification, and in turn is oppressed by those stronger than it, to it's own destruction.

As the family, so too goes the nation.
This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. A traditional marriage can damage a kid more than a gay marriage. Many people got married not to have kids, but too have sex. And many people have sex before marriage anyway.

This entire paragraph says nothing on how gay marriage is any worse than marriage between a man and a wife.
__________________
Emi is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 01:30 PM   #141
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
You are right. Same-sex partners cannot procreate. But, it makes no sense why this argument proves that same-sex marriage is wrong. Just because man did not evolve(or was created) with a vagina doesn't make it wrong. If you are following the fact that they cannot procreate, then in that argument monogamy and birth control are wrong because they limit birth potential. Which undermines your whole argument on a male-female marriage.
No, it doesn't make monogamy wrong, it makes polygyny more right.

Quote:
And don't bring up religion. Any serious gay marriage discussion should not have to do with the ideologies of a man from the 1st century.
LOL at that, because I'm using ideologies that have survived since 6000 BC and beyond.


Quote:
This is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. A traditional marriage can damage a kid more than a gay marriage. Many people got married not to have kids, but too have sex. And many people have sex before marriage anyway.

This entire paragraph says nothing on how gay marriage is any worse than marriage between a man and a wife.
That's because you're not hearing me, you're not understanding what I'm saying, or you simply refuse to accept it.

Of course a traditional marriage can damage kids if the parents are bad, so the same goes for a same-sex marriage, and a single parent household, but strictly speaking, a perfect heterosexual marriage is the better environment for raising children then a perfect same-sex marriage.

You know what I'm saying is undebateable, and that is exactly why you're trying to invalidate my point by using unbalanced comparisons.

Marriage is for raising families. If people just desire sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual, they can have civil unions, or prostitutes. Leave marriage out of it.

People having sex before marriage is wrong anyway, but of course, society has already degraded that far, but there's no reason to let it degrade further. You can't use the current state of the perversion of marriage to suit your arguments, because it's already corrupted past what it's meant for.

Last edited by unownmew; 09-15-2012 at 02:05 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 01:33 PM   #142
kusari
「Killer Queen No Prog」
 
kusari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a beautiful Duwang
Posts: 2,343
Send a message via Skype™ to kusari
UM, you do realise that homosexuals can also get married out of love and not just for sex, correct?
__________________
Eternally TL4 4-EVER For All of Infinite Time
kusari is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 01:59 PM   #143
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Precisely why is it better for a child to have one male and one female role model?
Mercutio is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 02:28 PM   #144
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
UM, you do realise that homosexuals can also get married out of love and not just for sex, correct?
And what you failed to realize is, my argument is that marriage is not about love, or sex to begin with. It's about procreation and the family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
Precisely why is it better for a child to have one male and one female role model?
Because males and females are different in more than just biological appearance and anatomy.

A father can not mother a child, and a mother can not father a child. There is a reason women have always tended towards feminine qualities and males tend towards masculine qualities. The brain is wired differently. There are things a man can not do, and things a female can not do, and when you have two parents of the same gender, you rob the child of those other things.
unownmew is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 03:22 PM   #145
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
I love how UM is the one using science as evidence.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 09-15-2012, 09:28 PM   #146
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
However, unownmew, in this day and age especially, we're more enlightened to how sexist gender roles are towards both sexes, and slowly but surely breaking out of that mould. I know it's directly opposed to your views, but women can be so much more than babymakers, and can actually be the major breadwinner of a family. Men can actually be very good nurturers, as well.

And I dare you to look me in the eye and tell me that I wouldn't have been better raised by a gay couple who really wanted children (and thus would strive to be better parents), than the family I grew up in, with a selfish abuse bastard as a father.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 05:21 AM   #147
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Yeah, no. UM, you are confusing sex with gender. Sex is the fact that males have a penis and females have a uterus. Gender is the non biological side of it. There is no biological reason that a woman cannot be President of the united states, but culturally, it would be a big step forward if you guys elected one. This is gender politixs, not sex.

There is no reason why having two different sexes for parents is good for a child. Most of the 'wiring differently' of which you speak is human construction, not nature's intent. It is entirely plausible for two men in a relationship to consist of the manly guy and tr effeminate guy. But even given that, to assume that both are necessary and that both must come from the parents is fairly dumb. Sex has little to do with it.
Mercutio is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 07:43 AM   #148
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
As well, if I remember right, you believe in a strong extended family unit. So even if they did need a female influence as well, wouldn't having my sister (and at times her husband and their third, another woman) come over at times, maybe babysit occasionally, and be fairly involved in their lives satisfy the need for that female influence? It seems to be that quite a few gay men have sisters, probably around the same percentage of straight men with sisters. Can't their aunties be the female role model (making the huge assumption one is even needed during development)? And after they start schools, they are sure to have at least one female teacher, and hopefully at least one who truly cares about the children learning.

Before you start to rant about how that kind of role model doesn't work, let me tell you this. My high school Ag teacher, Mr. Freeman, was more of a father figure in the four and a half years he was my mentor (summer ag project prior to 9th, pig for fair), than my father figure ever was throughout my entire life, and had a definite role in shaping me into the man I am. Not saying I emulated him, of course, he's a heterosexual libertarian who, like you, doesn't agree with homosexuality, but he did help shape some of my tolerance and gave me a certain amount of discipline. He joked a lot about my orientation, but it was always clear that it was because he actually cared about me, and really didn't judge (we got into a few informal debates, too, on all kinds of subjects. Good times). What I'm saying here is that the nuclear family structure is overrated, and I feel that it can really open up a huge window for the father to be abusive in his power, because nobody has the power to check him. Maybe I'm a bit cynical there, but psychological scars don't heal easy, or sometimes, at all. Anyway, rambling, so
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:56 AM   #149
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
However, unownmew, in this day and age especially, we're more enlightened to how sexist gender roles are towards both sexes, and slowly but surely breaking out of that mould. I know it's directly opposed to your views, but women can be so much more than babymakers, and can actually be the major breadwinner of a family. Men can actually be very good nurturers, as well.

Whenever someone says "in this day and age, we're more enlightened than our primitive ancestors of the past," you can be sure, that is exactly what our ancestors said way back then, about the exact same social questions we're discussing now. Having gender roles is sexist? On the contrary, it's very natural. Women are mothers, men are fathers, and neither one can fulfill to the fullest, the role of their opposite. They can do sufficiently when one is lacking, but never completely.

Our ancestors knew better than we, and yet we foolishly assume that since we've advanced so greatly technologically, we are so much more enlightened, while they were nothing more than savage primitives.
Explain to me the meaning of Yin and Yang.

Quote:
And I dare you to look me in the eye and tell me that I wouldn't have been better raised by a gay couple who really wanted children (and thus would strive to be better parents), than the family I grew up in, with a selfish abuse bastard as a father.
There you go again, making another unbalanced comparison because the balanced one doesn't support your side. I'm sorry you had such a trying childhood, but two can play at that game: I dare you to look me in the eye and tell me a child would be better raised in an abusive homosexual family than in a family heterosexual parents who really wanted children and would strive to be better parents.

See how unbalancing the parameters makes the answer automatically conform with the asker's views? Now stop, and lets start talking about equal comparisons.
Can you honestly tell me that a perfect homosexual marriage would be exactly equal to a heterosexual marriage, in how children are raised? Can the perfect love of an adopted child rival an equally perfect love from genetic parents? Can a perfect love of someone who has taken part in birthing children, rival the perfect love of someone who has never taken part in birthing children?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
As well, if I remember right, you believe in a strong extended family unit. So even if they did need a female influence as well, wouldn't having my sister (and at times her husband and their third, another woman) come over at times, maybe babysit occasionally, and be fairly involved in their lives satisfy the need for that female influence? It seems to be that quite a few gay men have sisters, probably around the same percentage of straight men with sisters. Can't their aunties be the female role model (making the huge assumption one is even needed during development)? And after they start schools, they are sure to have at least one female teacher, and hopefully at least one who truly cares about the children learning.

If I were to state it, I would say, a "mother's influence" which is far different than a sister's influence, or an aunt's influence, though they can be similar, they can never be equal. Furthermore, education of a child is primarily the responsibility of the parents, not something that should be farmed out to the government. State Education is a good supplemental learning, but real education should be done by the parents (and if not, they are not doing their duty as a parent)

Quote:
Before you start to rant about how that kind of role model doesn't work, let me tell you this. My high school Ag teacher, Mr. Freeman, was more of a father figure in the four and a half years he was my mentor (summer ag project prior to 9th, pig for fair), than my father figure ever was throughout my entire life, and had a definite role in shaping me into the man I am. Not saying I emulated him, of course, he's a heterosexual libertarian who, like you, doesn't agree with homosexuality, but he did help shape some of my tolerance and gave me a certain amount of discipline. He joked a lot about my orientation, but it was always clear that it was because he actually cared about me, and really didn't judge (we got into a few informal debates, too, on all kinds of subjects. Good times). What I'm saying here is that the nuclear family structure is overrated, and I feel that it can really open up a huge window for the father to be abusive in his power, because nobody has the power to check him. Maybe I'm a bit cynical there, but psychological scars don't heal easy, or sometimes, at all. Anyway, rambling, so
Oh, I don't disagree that such a role model can work, but if a child needs such a role model, then the parents are not doing their duty, the duties they were supposed to accept when entering into a marriage. The solution then, is not to alter marriage, but to fix the social and legal issues that are allowing such problems to exist in the first place.

Make divorce far more difficult and far less prevalent.
Develop a social stigma against extramarital and premarital affairs, particularly between teenagers.
Codify adultery and penalize it.
Prohibit abortion, and penalize it.
Enforce marriage of a pregnant mother and the biological father.
Enforce abuse laws already on the books.
Subsidize Marital Counseling.

And I guarantee society will start looking far cleaner, and there will be fewer
sad stories of abusive families.

Another possibility is legalizing polygyny, particularly in the case of widows, divorcees, and abandoned mothers.
unownmew is offline  
Old 09-16-2012, 10:13 AM   #150
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
There's nothing in the brain that makes gender roles sex appropriate I'm afraid. You're factually wrong on this one mate

You're also bigoted, but I'm going to chalk that down to a narrow world view rather than being a wanker.
Mercutio is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.