The Two Parent Paradigm of Child Rearing

[The Valkyrie]

Pardon my lack of eloquence compared to the rest of you, but I just wanted to point this out: reproduction isn't the only necessity of a species survival. Social and emotional needs are also VERY important. In some cultures, even now, a woman is for making babies and not pleasure and therefore homosexuality is what is actually indulged in for pleasure. Regardless of what is natural (the majority of humanity does unnatural things, sorry to say), the main thing to remember is that marriage is supposed to be the union of two people who love each other enough that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. If two men or two women marry with that intention, wouldn't they be an excellent example to their children, adopted or otherwise, of how two people should treat each other and how love and other positive emotions can and should be exhibited?

[Ashiakin]

I'm not prepared to make the claim that homosexuality is genetic, but I think that Serilliant touches on some important ideas. The point of natural selection is not that nature is creating one superior type of creature and that different subspecific variations of it are somehow "unnatural" because they deviate, but that nature is hedging its bets by creating the widest variety of variations possible in order to ensure its preservation in a constantly changing environment. There can be no one superior variety because there is no such thing as the environment in which a creature lives being constant. Homosexuality could simply be one of the many ways that nature is hedging its bets.

So even if someone does disapprove of homosexuality for whatever reasons, it would still be beneficial for them to change their position because variation within a species is important to the survival of that species. Keeping this in mind, I don't think the claim that gays may someday be the only reason that the human race continues is that outlandish. Nature wants a highly varied population. It wants diversity in order to ensure survival.

[Lighthawk76]

Well, since this argument has taken a turn from child-rearing to homosexuality (with a little discussion on what the purpose of man's reason is, which I think is the question Chiroptera and Ashiakin are unknowingly dancing around) I'm going to try to respond/answer what I can/want, and most likely add in something else.

First, that extra something else.

Please do not call those that are against gay marriage "racists" or this new push against gay marriage "racism." Firstly, its just not racism. This isn't a race we are putting down. In truth, we are not denying them anything, we are just not granting them anything.

Also, most of my own religious community (Roman Catholic) who have at least tried to understand the statements that come down from Rome understand that we don't hate homosexuals. We abhor the act, not the actor. We do not condemn people, we condemn their choices (there is a difference). And don't tell me "it's impossible to not be who you are." You are not homosexual, who you are is (insert name), who happens to be homosexual (the argument of decision or choice aside).

We abhor the act, because it goes against nature. I'll let others decide if they want me to go into what "nature" is, but I'll start with the physical nature. Two male organs don't work together, and two female organs don't work together.

If someone wants to bring up the argument "well what about the non-religious," I'm prepared to discuss Natural Law.

Now as for parenting, two parents are the ideal. And if the above is true, then they must be straight parents. Now can single parents work, yes. The fact than a man or woman can die, leaving their spouse alone with their children, proves that it can work. However, it is not the ideal. Does this mean you must remarry? No. Does it mean you should? No. Are you raising children outside of an ideal setting? Yes. Every child wants to have two parents, on some level. Every person called to the married life wants another to complete them. Sometimes, though, we are called to live lives outside the ideal.

Wow, I got really religious at the end. Sorry.

Hmmm, I've tried to make the above sound more politically correct, but I can't. Whoever responds trying to tear what I've said above apart, know that I'm ready.

And yes, I know this has been dead for a while, but I'm interested in it, so sue me.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Natural Law. There's a reason the court system consistently refuses to hear arguments based on it -- thank God for the Peace of Westphalia.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I like St. Thomas's prayers. And that's about it. The idea of the "ideal" has brought humanity nothing but tears. The whole "what is the purpose of man" game in the catechism exists as a tautological pursuit of rabbits. There may be things knowable and perceptible by reason, but the Mind of God proves much hairier than that.

[Serilliant]

Two male organs don't work together, and two female organs don't work together.

You probably just weren't trying hard enough.

The points you make are interesting, but it seems that the premise of your argument is to assume that which you intend to prove. You claim that parenting by two straight parents is the ideal, but on what fact pattern is this based? Statistics are shaky in this area and seem to, not surprisingly, support whatever agenda the reporter of the statistics chooses to advance.

I can understand arguments akin to "well, it seems logical that two parents are better than one" and "both a masculine and feminine influence is better than just one or the other", but why must the solution still be two parents? What makes two opposite-sexed parents better than, say, four multi-sexed parents? Or six? Or eight? Or a whole lot more? 'It takes a village to raise a child', after all, so why do you advocate specifically that two is the ideal?

[Lighthawk76]

(to Serilliant)

Well, my primary reply would be, look at it from the process. It takes one man and one woman to create a child. So therefore, why wouldn't it be best for one man and woman to rear such a child.

The thing you keep asking for (I believe, one only gets something like 20% of what a person means through the written word, so forgive me if I'm wrong) is someone to say that it is okay for the non-ideal to work, which I believe I said is very true.

The matter still stands, what is the ideal?

There are a hundred different arguments for it, all I believe are probably shaky in one way or another. It's the fact that one must really look at what seems to be best. Look first at history, hasn't it been one woman and man rearing a child for the longest of times? As you might point out though, history has been wrong before in cases like slavery and racism.

Another thing to wonder: Is what you're asking how many people rear the child, or how many have custody of said child? For here again is a great difference.

Few people would say that only your mother and/or father reared you. Many of us had grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers, family friends, and even older siblings who in one way or another helped rear them. The parents though are the ones who have custody of the child. If you're arguing for custody, why would you want a oligarchy to be making the decisions for a child. If anyone is in any form of relationship, they might know the troubles of trying to make decisions with just two people. What happens when there are now four, six, or eight? Does one have veto power over the others? Do they make decisions equally?

Maybe there isn't a definitive reason why two are the ideal, but one must decide upon a limit at some point. So why not two when it was two that brought this beautiful, rational creature into life?

And trying hard enough has little to do with it friend. Stick may pleasure stick, and hole may pleasure hole, but neither fit. And trying to do it, or do it any other way, makes the act into a pleasure act. Yes, it may bring the couple closer, but much in the same way that dancing does, or playing a video game. It is shared pleasure.

The coupling of man and woman is an act which mimics the image of God Himself. And yes, this is a belief. It is rational, but not built on reason.

(to Sighter)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying? I understand you're not trying to be rude, so don't worry about that. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions though.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I like St. Thomas's prayers. And that's about it. The idea of the "ideal" has brought humanity nothing but tears. The whole "what is the purpose of man" game in the catechism exists as a tautological pursuit of rabbits. There may be things knowable and perceptible by reason, but the Mind of God proves much hairier than that.

The natural law is self-evident I believe, even if no one wants to admit it. If reason can prove it, disprove it, uphold it, condemn it, than that is the law of nature. Now is there more beyond it, yes. My own faith believes in Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason. Faith is not built upon reason, but is reasonable. Reason is not built upon faith, but doesn't contradict faith. Much of faith needs revelation. The bible is still the great manual of our faith.

Now, the ideal bringing tears? Well, I might agree with that. I don't believe the Truth will always bring a smile, sometimes it will bring pain. The Allies in WWII had to uphold a truth by killing and sacrificing many (the A-bombs are a different matter). Many were ruined or even killed trying to peacefully gain rights for minorities. In my own faith, a man, my God, went through some of the worst torture imaginable for teaching the Truth. The Truth is the ideal, tears may need to be spent, but it must be upheld. Truth is truth.

As far as your claim about the catechism being tautological (I'm guessing you mean that the catechism repeats itself without making any headway? The word is new to me) I would need you to clarify more. Perhaps I am biased, but I find it to be very straight forward to someone of Faith and Reason.

And as for saying the Mind of God proves much hairier than what can be found by reason, this is very true. Revelation exists for a reason. God is absolutely transcendent, and our reason cannot fathom him, therefore he must reveal himself. Proofs of God really only prove the need for something more than material reality or a prime mover, they do not explain God. I'm not sure of your exact faith or denomination, so I'm not sure if you know of the Catholic belief in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons of one divine reality/substance (one God). We know of it, and see it because of revelation, not because of reason. We find it to be reasonable, in that it does not go against reason and reason can be applied to it. It is a matter of faith, though, because you cannot come to the conclusion of it with reason.

We may be getting off topic here, but if you would like to respond on these points, basically me asking for clarification, and the mod of this thread would allow it, I would very much enjoy discussing it.