Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The "Family", as Defined

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 4:38:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.

Not a good argument. Mating habits do have biological contexts. In fact, you can predict the mating habits of different primates from certain indicators like testicle-to-body-mass ratios, infant age of viability, resource availability, etc.

Unlike every other known primate, humans are unique in requiring a relatively insanely long time to grow old enough to viably live on one's one. Consider a horse that can walk around SECONDS after birth. Even baby chimps can cling to their mothers instead of the mothers being forced to use two of four appendages to carry them.

So a biological argument will not benefit you in the least if you want to argue for OR against certain forms of marriage.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 6:30:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 4:38:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.

Not a good argument. Mating habits do have biological contexts. In fact, you can predict the mating habits of different primates from certain indicators like testicle-to-body-mass ratios, infant age of viability, resource availability, etc.

Unlike every other known primate, humans are unique in requiring a relatively insanely long time to grow old enough to viably live on one's one. Consider a horse that can walk around SECONDS after birth. Even baby chimps can cling to their mothers instead of the mothers being forced to use two of four appendages to carry them.

So a biological argument will not benefit you in the least if you want to argue for OR against certain forms of marriage.

I don't see how predicting mating habits means that certain mating habits *should* occur. It's quite the naturalistic fallacy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 10:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 6:30:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/6/2012 4:38:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.

Not a good argument. Mating habits do have biological contexts. In fact, you can predict the mating habits of different primates from certain indicators like testicle-to-body-mass ratios, infant age of viability, resource availability, etc.

Unlike every other known primate, humans are unique in requiring a relatively insanely long time to grow old enough to viably live on one's one. Consider a horse that can walk around SECONDS after birth. Even baby chimps can cling to their mothers instead of the mothers being forced to use two of four appendages to carry them.

So a biological argument will not benefit you in the least if you want to argue for OR against certain forms of marriage.

I don't see how predicting mating habits means that certain mating habits *should* occur. It's quite the naturalistic fallacy.

I'm not making a normative argument. I'm saying that if you wanted to make a normative argument using biology, what he said would be a bad argument aside from the is-ought problem.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 11:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 10:58:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm not making a normative argument. I'm saying that if you wanted to make a normative argument using biology, what he said would be a bad argument aside from the is-ought problem.

I'm not making a normative argument, either. I'm merely responding to one that has been made for me. Western norms dictate the definition of family and classify anything that deviates from the norm as unnatural. In the sense of not normal for most modern societies, I would be forced to agree; but, in the sense of not natural as not found among most species, I would have to stick my head in the sand and deny natural history.
Tiffany1billion
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 11:55:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.

It's very difficult to compare humans with different mammals, if only because the environments are so radically different. It would be more effective to study long-term human development resulting from differing parenting scenarios (apples to apples). I think studies DO show that children raised in environments with stable male and female role models are more likely to:
1. Respect themselves.
2. Show empathy and appreciation.
3. Communicate effectively with others.
4. Treat others with respect.
5. Embrace an ideal (stable) enivronment for their own family later in life.
There are so many studies showing a multitude of benefits of being raised in an "ideal environment" with both male and female role models.
I don't think the gay/lesbian argument needs to come into play here. Or the single parent argument. If you raised 2 moms or 2 dads -great!- The more, the merrier, assuming everyone loves the child. Just don't discount the importance of having a role model of the opposite sex.
Tiffany
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 9:34:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was uncertain about whether it is a good idea to have a child raised by a homosexual couple because kids deserve a mother and a father. At this point I believe that the biggest concern is making sure the kid has at least two good parents - the gender is less important. It is important however that the child has a good role model of the same sex to emulate.
Rob
Tiffany1billion
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 9:34:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I was uncertain about whether it is a good idea to have a child raised by a homosexual couple because kids deserve a mother and a father. At this point I believe that the biggest concern is making sure the kid has at least two good parents - the gender is less important.

Hmm.. I wonder why my daughter looks for her daddy when he's not around. I don't remember my son doing that. When he needs empathy or emotional support, he comes to me in the same way my daughter does.

It is important however that the child has a good role model of the same sex to emulate.

Very important! But I believe the opposite sex has an equal amount of importance in raising a child. Being raised by my single mother, I know that missed out on alot of important lessons until I was old enough to learn them the (much) harder way.
Most females I know that were raised in a mother-only household grow up to be super-dependant on men or -the opposite extreme- find it hard to see the value in having a man at all.
I've only just recently come to understand one huge & negative effect it had on me: As an adult female, I enable the men in my life simply because I grew up knowing I couldn't expect anything from any man. I'm not helping anyone by doing this; I'm just creating more inequity & false assumptions in the eyes of others. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young girls need a male role model in order to learn healthy expectations.
Male children need a female role-model just as much. The lack of a mother figure produces the same type of dependancy vs disrepect attitude (toward women) later in life. On the contrary, men who were/are close to their mothers seem more likely to be kind, generous, respectful and empathetic with the other women in their lives. At least in my experience.
Tiffany
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:02:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 12:59:06 PM, s-anthony wrote:
For those who say male and female of the species are needed to create an idealistic environment for offspring, they must be reminded, they are very narrow in their consensus, considering pair bonding is not the norm yet a rare phenomenon among species. If other primates and mammals successfully raise their young in either single parent or matriarchal communities, why is it frowned upon by most human societies? It can not be deduced as an innate or biological necessity but merely a convention of society, something arbitrarily defined and codified in one's ethics.

Comparing humans to animals is like comparing space shuttles to bottle rockets.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who wants to make the missing connection between mating and marriage?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:18:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:48:49 PM, Tiffany1billion wrote:
At 7/13/2012 9:34:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I was uncertain about whether it is a good idea to have a child raised by a homosexual couple because kids deserve a mother and a father. At this point I believe that the biggest concern is making sure the kid has at least two good parents - the gender is less important.

Hmm.. I wonder why my daughter looks for her daddy when he's not around. I don't remember my son doing that. When he needs empathy or emotional support, he comes to me in the same way my daughter does.

It is important however that the child has a good role model of the same sex to emulate.

Very important! But I believe the opposite sex has an equal amount of importance in raising a child. Being raised by my single mother, I know that missed out on alot of important lessons until I was old enough to learn them the (much) harder way.
Most females I know that were raised in a mother-only household grow up to be super-dependant on men or -the opposite extreme- find it hard to see the value in having a man at all.
I've only just recently come to understand one huge & negative effect it had on me: As an adult female, I enable the men in my life simply because I grew up knowing I couldn't expect anything from any man. I'm not helping anyone by doing this; I'm just creating more inequity & false assumptions in the eyes of others. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young girls need a male role model in order to learn healthy expectations.
Male children need a female role-model just as much. The lack of a mother figure produces the same type of dependancy vs disrepect attitude (toward women) later in life. On the contrary, men who were/are close to their mothers seem more likely to be kind, generous, respectful and empathetic with the other women in their lives. At least in my experience.

Studies show that homosexual parents are actually better than heterosexual parents in this regard.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 8:18:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Plus, a lot of "family values" families breed disrespect for women because the wife is usually subservient in those unequal marriages (which is really stupid since studies show that women are more intelligent than men).
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 7:18:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 8:18:06 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:48:49 PM, Tiffany1billion wrote:
At 7/13/2012 9:34:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I was uncertain about whether it is a good idea to have a child raised by a homosexual couple because kids deserve a mother and a father. At this point I believe that the biggest concern is making sure the kid has at least two good parents - the gender is less important.

Hmm.. I wonder why my daughter looks for her daddy when he's not around. I don't remember my son doing that. When he needs empathy or emotional support, he comes to me in the same way my daughter does.

It is important however that the child has a good role model of the same sex to emulate.

Very important! But I believe the opposite sex has an equal amount of importance in raising a child. Being raised by my single mother, I know that missed out on alot of important lessons until I was old enough to learn them the (much) harder way.
Most females I know that were raised in a mother-only household grow up to be super-dependant on men or -the opposite extreme- find it hard to see the value in having a man at all.
I've only just recently come to understand one huge & negative effect it had on me: As an adult female, I enable the men in my life simply because I grew up knowing I couldn't expect anything from any man. I'm not helping anyone by doing this; I'm just creating more inequity & false assumptions in the eyes of others. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young girls need a male role model in order to learn healthy expectations.
Male children need a female role-model just as much. The lack of a mother figure produces the same type of dependancy vs disrepect attitude (toward women) later in life. On the contrary, men who were/are close to their mothers seem more likely to be kind, generous, respectful and empathetic with the other women in their lives. At least in my experience.

Studies show that homosexual parents are actually better than heterosexual parents in this regard.

Ignoring your other, more insane comment, where is the evidence? Don't give me statistics, give me details.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 9:19:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 7:18:11 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 7/17/2012 8:18:06 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:48:49 PM, Tiffany1billion wrote:
At 7/13/2012 9:34:05 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I was uncertain about whether it is a good idea to have a child raised by a homosexual couple because kids deserve a mother and a father. At this point I believe that the biggest concern is making sure the kid has at least two good parents - the gender is less important.

Hmm.. I wonder why my daughter looks for her daddy when he's not around. I don't remember my son doing that. When he needs empathy or emotional support, he comes to me in the same way my daughter does.

It is important however that the child has a good role model of the same sex to emulate.

Very important! But I believe the opposite sex has an equal amount of importance in raising a child. Being raised by my single mother, I know that missed out on alot of important lessons until I was old enough to learn them the (much) harder way.
Most females I know that were raised in a mother-only household grow up to be super-dependant on men or -the opposite extreme- find it hard to see the value in having a man at all.
I've only just recently come to understand one huge & negative effect it had on me: As an adult female, I enable the men in my life simply because I grew up knowing I couldn't expect anything from any man. I'm not helping anyone by doing this; I'm just creating more inequity & false assumptions in the eyes of others. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Young girls need a male role model in order to learn healthy expectations.
Male children need a female role-model just as much. The lack of a mother figure produces the same type of dependancy vs disrepect attitude (toward women) later in life. On the contrary, men who were/are close to their mothers seem more likely to be kind, generous, respectful and empathetic with the other women in their lives. At least in my experience.

Studies show that homosexual parents are actually better than heterosexual parents in this regard.

Ignoring your other, more insane comment, where is the evidence? Don't give me statistics, give me details.

They're more tolerant and accepting of people, especially women, because they have parents who are more likely to be liberal and who aren't as traditional and deadset on specific values.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 9:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, my other "insane" comment is true. A study published on Sunday notes that women have higher IQs than men. I did research and found that they also have higher GPAs in college and are more likely than men to have graduate and college degrees. They also graduate from high school at higher rates and take more Advanced Placement courses.