What is an ideal family?

[William]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

William,
In terms of artificial insemination, I completely disagree with your views:

What are these "good reasons" you speak of? Why shouldn't a woman be given the opportunity to raise a child if she is not physically able to give birth? I hope you're not implying these women cannot be good mothers. I know of two woman that had an abundance of love to give, but were unable to reproduce, and so they adopted. They now lovingly raise two children, and live happier lives because of this. This "pick a child" thing is positive, not negative. Biology does not define "mother", in my opinion. Actions do, and I don't feel we should deprive a woman of her ability to provide care for a child who may not have had an opportunity to be loved otherwise.

And why shouldn't a husband (who cannot impregnate his wife), allow a child into their family? I'd hope the husband would be understanding enough, that, if the woman seeks to become a mother, he allows her to do so. No, not just allow: Support!

Zetherin,
Thank you for your question. In my opinion there is a psychological and "psychic" bond that can only exist between a Father and a Mother and their child. Though the family is flawed and needs a lot of work, there are no facsimile’s that will replace the biological Mother and Father of any child, no matter what the "selection process" is. In my opinion, the reality we have created, it is close to impossible to understand this "universal bond" simply because so many people are having so many children for all the "wrong" reasons. Sperm banks only add to that.

My heart goes out to those women who want children and can conceive them. It really does and the best solution is to adopt a child that already is, rather than bring another one into this world. If that desire of the woman to have a child were out of love, it wouldn’t matter where the child came from. IMO and it is by belief to have a child is the prime directive in a woman. Though it may be politically incorrect in this reality to believe as such, I have witnessed on too many occasions the environment of those women who fulfill that need without realizing the responsibility involved and the balance environment needed to bring that child into the world. That’s the problem. Even in those conditions where the biological connections are in tact, so many children suffer because instead of strengthening the family, elements in our society are doing all they can to dismantle it for absolutely selfish reasons. God damn it!!!!!!

Now, having said all that, adoption is the only course to take, in my opinion. Though it is a selection process,( I think it is anyway but it shouldn’t be), it at least gives a home to a child that desperately needs one. In a selection process we will be biased as we opt for that which we think will be best suited to our needs. When it comes to love, it needs no selection process. Furthermore, let me add, it is also my belief, and a firm one it is, that no child, no child should be adopted by any facsimile of what political correctness today is recognizing as a family that is slowly replacing the traditional biological family such as single parent, and those that are homosexual. I know that is politically incorrect, so be it.

This reality is so screwed up that in some parts of the third world women are having children to "sell" so they can survive. That sperm bank is the male equivalent to that. Both are preposterous, IMO. If a barren women wants a child, there are many to choose from. Consider 1 in 5o world wide. Play with those numbers.

William

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by William

In my opinion, the reality we have created, it is close to impossible to understand this "universal bond" simply because so many people are having so many children for all the "wrong" reasons. Sperm banks only add to that.

Originally Posted by William

My heart goes out to those women who want children and can conceive them. It really does and the best solution is to adopt a child that already is, rather than bring another one into this world. If that desire of the woman to have a child were out of love, it wouldn’t matter where the child came from.

Originally Posted by William

Furthermore, let me add, it is also my belief, and a firm one it is, that no child, no child should be adopted by any facsimile of what political correctness today is recognizing as a family that is slowly replacing the traditional biological family such as single parent, and those that are homosexual. I know that is politically incorrect, so be it.

Originally Posted by William

This reality is so screwed up that in some parts of the third world women are having children to "sell" so they can survive. That sperm bank is the male equivalent to that.

This is all dogma and no philosophy. Can you arrive at any of these truths reasonably? Or do you just reiterate subscribed-to Church views?

For instance, can you show that children adopted by a gay couple are worse off than those born of a straight couple? Can you demonstrate the effect of a woman who uses a sperk bank on the relationship between another woman and her sexually conceived child? Can you demonstrate the equivilence between a sperm and a born child that makes selling sperm equivilent to selling children?

Can you explain to me why if there's such a special bond between mother and sexually conceived child, why a "barren" (do people really still use that word?) woman should adopt rather than conceive non-sexually? Surely non-sexual conception is closer to sexual conception than adoption, and so surely the non-sexually conceiving woman will feel that special bond more than an adopting woman!

[William]

Originally Posted by Greg

Hmm; I see how that might be a valid reason.
So are you arguing that excessive masturbation is psychologically damaging?

Not in and of itself. Excessive is the operative word. For the most part, masturbation is a solitary, isolated and personal experience. We are not, IMO, anti-social creations. We were designed to interact socially in a complimentary fashion with each other. People are forced into isolation because for whatever reason, do not "fit" in with what this "society" defines as social and masturbation "is" their sex life, as it were. The more one adapts to the isolation, in all respects, they become anti-social, for good reasons in their minds as they find more solace in that isolation rather than in a sociatal venue. That, depending on how the individual interprets it, can be pshchological damaging, though the act itself is not. IMO. I think it is considered immoral by the church because of it's selfish nature. Nocturnal emissions is nature's way of solving that problem, but considering the persvasiveness of erotica in the public domain, nature doesn't stand a chance. Ha. IMHO.

William

[William]

Originally Posted by Bones-O!

This is all dogma and no philosophy. Can you arrive at any of these truths reasonably? Or do you just reiterate subscribed-to Church views?

For instance, can you show that children adopted by a gay couple are worse off than those born of a straight couple? Can you demonstrate the effect of a woman who uses a sperk bank on the relationship between another woman and her sexually conceived child? Can you demonstrate the equivilence between a sperm and a born child that makes selling sperm equivilent to selling children?

Can you explain to me why if there's such a special bond between mother and sexually conceived child, why a "barren" (do people really still use that word?) woman should adopt rather than conceive non-sexually? Surely non-sexual conception is closer to sexual conception than adoption, and so surely the non-sexually conceiving woman will feel that special bond more than an adopting woman!

Bones,
I stated in my opening sentence what my belief’s are. These are my belief’s and I am not swayed by any sort of "politically correct" rhetoric that will alter those belief’s. Individual’s such as yourself can opt to accept them or decline them. It is your decision. The onus is on you to prove me wrong, and if you do, then by all means I will amend my belief’s.

Again, it is my belief Man, Woman and Child and that biological connection is a universal construct and any alternative to that is wrong. Yeah, since the early late 60's and the early 70's elements in our society have been trying to change the definition of this universal construct and there are no universal alternatives, only those that these elements try to create. Personally I am not concerned if you wish to call it "dogma"or what, it is my truth and I sleep really good at night believing the way I do.

IMO, there is no way in hell a child will get the balance they need in a homosexual home or a single parent home or a home where there are no biological connections. Children are not commodities to be bought and sold or exchange on the open market and those who cannot have them, or should not have them should not are not be entitled to them no matter how bad they desire them. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, that is just not the way things are in the world today and because there are so many children who need homes, we have gotten ourselves in one hell of a mess and are force to put these unfortunate children anywhere we can. I believe I know where you are going with this and I will not get into a flame throwing contest here in discussing the right or wrongness of homosexuality or the entitlement of a woman to have a baby simply because she wants one to fill a lack in her life. I explained that, of which you neglected to comment on. I have made my position perfectly on feminism, homosexuality and the child and I will not be swayed unless you can provide ME, with a truth otherwise.

As far as non-sexual conception vs. sexual conception is a moot point as far as I am concerned considering all the "real children" in the world who need homes. To maintain that is a selfishness I cannot comprehend. Sorry. And as far as the selling of one’s sperm to that of a woman selling her baby, that shouldn’t have to be explained. Just give it a little more thought.

William

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by William

These are my belief’s... The onus is on you to prove me wrong, and if you do, then by all means I will amend my belief’s.

You can't be serious. The onus is on me to do no such thing. I can reject your beliefs as simply as you can state them. As it happens I can justify my beliefs to the contrary, but I'm not obliged to someone who may only state their own. Further, I am not the one making any claim of difference between different people. It is no more encumbant for anyone to prove a gay couple can provide a good, loving home than it is for anyone to prove a woman capable of running a firm. The burden of proof lies with you, not I.

Originally Posted by William

Personally I am not concerned if you wish to call it "dogma"or what, it is my truth and I sleep really good at night believing the way I do.

I am glad on both counts.

Originally Posted by William

IMO, there is no way in hell a child will get the balance they need in a homosexual home or a single parent home or a home where there are no biological connections.

Yeah, we got that. but can you explain it is the question.

Originally Posted by William

I have made my position perfectly on feminism, homosexuality and the child and I will not be swayed unless you can provide ME, with a truth otherwise.

Fine. I don't think anyone is trying to sway you. But if I burst into your house and announced "People called William should not be allowed to eat chocolate pudding" you'd probably want an explanation (at least for why I was in your house). That's all I asked for. You've announced your views loud and clear. That just leaves a huge question mark hanging in the air. Are you just reiterating dogma or do you have an actual reasonable basis for this position? Keep your ways, man, no-one cares. But even a preacher on the street will try to explain stuff to me.

Originally Posted by William

As far as non-sexual conception vs. sexual conception is a moot point as far as I am concerned considering all the "real children" in the world who need homes.

By this token, no-one should sexually conceive until all orphans are adopted. And if you're tempted to call me callous, I'll lay £500 right now I'll beat you hands down in a who-cares-about-the-orphans-more competition.

[Bones-O!]

Originally Posted by William

Bones,
I have explained it as far as I am concerned. Just not to your satisfaction. Sorry.
William

Okay, I asked several questions, maybe that's a bit much.

Claim: A homosexual couple cannot provide the balance a heterosexual couple can.

1. How is balance evaluated - what is it?

2. How does a heterosexual couple (or this special familial bond that relies on sexual conception) provide this balance?

3. How do unbalanced children then come from heterosexual families who seriously considered having family (or do you suppose all children born of such heterosexual couples are always balanced)?

4. What do homosexuals lack such that this balance is not provided?

5. What are the facts supporting this - i.e. what evidence do we have that children of homosexual couples are less balanced than children of heterosexual ones?

Because in the absence of any of this information, there is no reason to suspect any difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents. I mean, if you showed me that lack of breastfeeding led to imbalance for instance... that's something people can at least understand.

[Bones-O!]

William

I'm not suggesting that you should necessarily answer these questions and thus prove your position to be true. I'm not asking for proof. But a reasonable argument against homosexual parenting based on providing balance should have something to say on all of the above, however dubious or sound, however true or untrue.

On the other hand, if your position is simply received dogma, with no reasonable basis, it is likely you have not considered any of the above and will not be able to address the questions.

I'm expecting zero response here. But doesn't that even slightly tempt you to evaluate your own position? Is there not a little part of you that asks "But why is this true?"

Non-ideologues have to deal with that about everything, from "Can I masturbate?" to "Why does the Sun come up?". But subscription is easier. I'm a Republican, so I'm against abortion! I'm a communist, so I'm against capitalism! I'm a Scientologist, so we're all aliens. Instant, prepacked, pret-a-manger truths.

In a discussion like this we see two entirely different ways of knowing trying to reach some mutual understanding but ending in frustration. The thing is we get your angle. Yours, Bona's, Greg's (at least til recently). We're not thick, we understand where you're coming from. If you can't address the above questions and you do get a niggle, well, I guess you understand where I'm coming from too.

Peace...

[William]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

If anyone is interested, I can also start a new thread, since this was kind of hijacked from Greg's intentions. Let me know what it is called, and which posts I should move on over and I can take care of it. It is my duty as a moderator to help out with such situations.

Other than that, I think we killed this masturbation thread by coming to the general conclusion that it is a non-moral act; therefore, it cannot be immoral.

How about: LIFE WITHOUT MOM AND DAD?
In today's world it seems Adam and Eve have been replaced by any number of family look-a-likes. It seems if there are adults and children under one roof it is a good facsimilie to the traditional, biological and universal standard family espoused in some religious doctrines. Is there a bond between Mom and Dad and Child? After all that child is created as a result of that union of between man and woman. But times have changed. It's just not that way anymore. Of course since the child has no choice, it is really left up the the "adults" to decide. Now we are faced with a delimma. We must try and determined if these alternative families are in the child's best interest or the adult's who desire them? it seems nature's way no longer applies as science has provided alternatives to the traditional, universal procedure for centuries use to bring a child into the world. Considering all the children in the world who need homes, now one can buy a child from sperm banks. I think we must consider who it is that contributes to sperm banks; who it is that wishes to purchase a child (I say child simply because it is impossible to have one withour the males contribution) from sperm banks and why those motivations are there that create that supply and demand market? it is quite obvious, considering all the children that need homes is not a consideration. Why?

Research shows, by and large, the predominant market is of the gay variety, who for natural reasons cannot have children the old universal, or traditional way. Yet, their innate need to foster children seems a bit lopsided since they are not in favor of adopting homeless children. Why?
It seems to me something is missing here. I hope we can get to the truth. I can't understand why adoptions is not a consideration. Perhaps together, we can reach those answers.

It seems we don't need Mom or Dad anymore and any combination of adults will do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the child? What do you think?
William

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by William

It seems we don't need Mom or Dad anymore and any combination of adults will do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing for the child? What do you think?

I don't think anyone is saying any combination of adults will do. Clearly, it depends who these adults are. But, no, I don't believe the equation for a loving family is necessitated by the combination of adults being male-female. A female-female, male-male couple could provide the same love and care.

Why are we to assume otherwise?

[salima]

i think i would define the issues as a question of what comprises the ideal family unit. or maybe what is acceptable as a family unit. you could really go off on various directions with that, including homosexuality, single parents, are all women programmed to be mothers, what makes someone male or female, should some people be prevented from even bearing their own children and when does society have the right to remove a child from its home, whether or not it is living with its biological parents. then there is artificial insemination and adoption, surrogate mothers, and what to tell a child who is raised by someone who is not his biological parents. what are the rights of these individuals in relation to each other and what limits should be set by society.