(July 10, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I missed my dad because of the financial support it provided me - Child alimony was not the same as having the full salary available - I went trough some rough times, it was just me, my mom and my sister. Of course, some single parents can provide a lot of stability, financial support and love, but it's always easier if you have two people doing the work - And I say two people because normally these are the biological parents.

A hard question:

Essentially, when you get married (just two people) you can have kids if it's a heterosexual couple, and then the law provides all the authority, rights and duties you have with your children, not to mention you have full legal supervision until they are 18 years old (and in some States 21) - Part of this stems from the fact the parents are biological - Legally, there is a preference given to biological parents, and withing marriage both have equal rights and duties for their children - But, but... Let's imagine a less complicated scenario and say there are just three people getting married, that's cool - Two of them are of the opposite sex and have a kid, so the kid is born and obviously the law operates automatic custody and all the legal rights and duties between parents and children - What about the other person? I mean, in marriage you're not supposed to discriminate against people, and as a general rule if you get married and have kids both have equal rights, so how do we deal with this? can we violate the principle that both parties are equal? Because the custody and rights comes from the fact the child is biologically yours - Adopted children, in any legal system in the west, are not treated the same as biological ones, even in cases where parents totally suck, the rights of the tutor are never exactly as wide as of a biological parent, so how can we justify that one of the parties in the contract has less rights?

Great post and good questions.

Jesus ep. You really are an asshole. The only thing uncalled for here was you calling CL a crazy bitch. Get over yourself -_-

(July 10, 2015 at 2:54 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Can you answer my questions directly from my post #142? Thanks! :

(or if you'd like I can make another post asking for clarifications again, but I think if you just answered the one I already made clearly and directly it would be quicker and more efficient.)

I did answer your questions. At least I thought I did.
Questions from said post were not clear. Please ask again anything you want, and I'll answer. You better not blow me off again like that, though. That's rude and uncalled for. Especially if you're expressively asking for my opinion beforehand.

I am sorry if you felt I blew you off and was rude. Those were not my intentions. I will write up another post and ask again, more clearly this time. Thanks for being patient.

---

(July 10, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: The only thing uncalled for here was you calling CL a crazy bitch. Get over yourself -_-

Thank you, Vic.

(July 10, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Jesus ep. You really are an asshole. The only thing uncalled for here was you calling CL a crazy bitch. Get over yourself -_-

I'm sorry you seem to think so. I think, what she did was unforgiveable. After I was reluctant to expound on my views at first, she first misquoted me, then put words in my mouth and tried to persuade me to answer in this manner. It's all there to see. When I finally did answer here she just dismissed my answers completely. Fuck that. If you can't accept people's opinions don't ask for them.
 I mean really this ?!
A asks B: Tell me what you think:
B says to A: I think so.
A says to B: your opinion doesn't matter.

Opinions are not really important, I merely asked for objective realities that prove your worldview is correct.

Quote:while still thinking that 2 parents in a committed, loving relationship generally tends to be better and more stable for the child than 1 lone parent with the other not being present.

Yeah.  Of course you don't get any guarantees there.

What is interesting is that studies have shown that the divorce rate has actually declined, although the pope may take cold comfort from that stat.  Two of the main reasons are that people are living together first and breaking up then rather than later and fewer people are getting married in the first place.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Opinions are not really important, I merely asked for objective realities that prove your worldview is correct.

 No, you didn't. If you did that, I would have tried to answer.This is what you actually did:

(July 10, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Dystopia Wrote: What you think is not really relevant if you don't present an objectively valid reason for it.

You merely dismissed my opinions on the subject because you perceived them as lacking any objectively valid reason.

(July 10, 2015 at 3:05 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: I'm sorry you seem to think so. I think, what she did was unforgiveable.

Don't act like she killed your cat. It was hardly anything close to unforgiveable.

And get help. The ego in that sentence is tripping my alarms hard.

(July 10, 2015 at 1:32 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?

No, I don't, and I wouldn't not even if all families were perfect(no such thing though). There might be far better ways to raise children than this.

Ok, so here, you are answering my question with a definitive "No." Meaning you definitively do not think that as a general rule it's better for society if children are raised in a stable home with both parents (as opposed to a non stable home with 2 parents, or a stable home with 1 parent, or any other scenario).

1. So if you definitively do not think the scenario presented above (stable home, 2 parents) is the ideal scenario, then what do you think would be a better scenario?

2. You then said there might be far better ways to raise children than in a stable home with 2 parents. What are your ideas/theories on what ways might be far better?

(I have numbered these to show that they are two separate questions addressing your two sentences. If you could answer them both, that would greatly help me understand your views. Thank you.)

Quote:

Quote:Catholic_Lady:
Another question in regards to the bolding... does this mean  you think the bearing of children should be "controlled?" If so, how?

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I want the species to survive.

Why, by restricting the number of children allowed to be born overall, of course. I couldn't care less if for every kid who doesn't get to be born now, another 1 trillion do in the remote future.

This is a lot more straight forward.

You are saying you believe the number of children people are allowed to have should be controlled, and that this should be done by restricting the number of children allowed to be born.

Can you elaborate on how the government should go about dictating the number of children being born, and how the government would enforce this law?

Thanks so much!

............