Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who are the parents? The ones that provided the DNA or the ones that were around to give the support and love as they matured. That's the flip side of the argument you are leading on.
No, I am arguing that homosexual couplings are abnormal, as in 'outside normal'. In theory and in practice, heterosexual couples (we're not talking about sperm and egg donors here) can "have children together". Homosexual couples neither in theory or practice can "have children together". Oh yeah, there is the adoption route, and the egg (or sperm) donor route, but those are not normal. I'm not saying they are bad, just not normal.
Perhaps some day scientists will figure out how to insert the genes from the non-producing partner into the sperm or egg of the non-partner donor so that both of the homosexual partners can "have a child together". Until then, don't kid yourself that homosexual couplings will ever be considered normal under rational, and biological, thinking.
If I'm outsourcing something, it's typically because I don't want to do it, don't have the technical competence to do it, there is a more efficient use of my time, or simply cannot do it.
Lots of people outsource lawn maintenance because they don't want to do it because it's unpleasant. Some cannot do it due to health reasons or they would make more by working the hour it takes to mow than lawn vs. the cost of mowing the lawn. If anything, outsourcing should become more common as people marry because they should generally have more income, may have kids to take care of, etc.
I can't "outsource" bodily needs where I have to be a participant. Someone else can't have sex for me. I can't outsource eating. I can outsource a massage, but the massage you'd buy is different than the sensual massage you'd receive from a partner.
More broadly, all of us outsource basic functions every day. How many people grow their own food and provide their own well water, as well as the raw materials of all this?
Yes and this is exactly the problem with the recent generation's view on marriage. They believe it should be a relationship of convenience. Its the "I'm not going to work at this relationship, change or adopt new habits to make it work" attitude people have these days. Back in the days a couple would actually try to make it work.
Presently, marriage has become a gimmick to many. Where once they tire of it they just let get rid of it. It's not that people in the past "put up with BS they didn't have to" and this generation has transcended that backward thinking; its the opposite. The current generations have completely forgotten the integral role marriage plays in establishing a healthy and balanced society/community. This is why the generations of past valued marriage and tried harder to work out their problems to stay married. This degradation of our society/community can be clearly seen throughout the country in the form of a decay of moral's, compassion, empathy, work ethic etc.
You seem to think that past generations are somehow less selfish and more considerate to the health of a society. I don't think people differ much that way. They did it because of social pressure. Today's people are given the freedom to choose.
But that child will not carry the genes of both partners. Heterosexual couples can "have children together" unless one is infertile. We would call infertility 'abnormal', not in the sense of 'being strange', but 'outside normal'. So, would you agree that homosexual couplings are abnormal?
I believe two people regardless of gender could work together to build a family, and that is, if they mutually want to. It doesn't have to be a man and a woman.
Two men, by the way, are actually more physically strong.
No, I am arguing that homosexual couplings are abnormal, as in 'outside normal'. In theory and in practice, heterosexual couples (we're not talking about sperm and egg donors here) can "have children together". Homosexual couples neither in theory or practice can "have children together". Oh yeah, there is the adoption route, and the egg (or sperm) donor route, but those are not normal. I'm not saying they are bad, just not normal.
Perhaps some day scientists will figure out how to insert the genes from the non-producing partner into the sperm or egg of the non-partner donor so that both of the homosexual partners can "have a child together". Until then, don't kid yourself that homosexual couplings will ever be considered normal under rational, and biological, thinking.
Being single on purpose is a type of economics that is explored very little.
To use one word to describe singleton life, it is outsourcing.
What does it mean to have a partner, married or just in a relationship? You share duties like household errands. You give each other a back rub or a massage. You make love and satisfy each other. You take care of each other when one is sick, old, etc.
Being single means these functions are outsourced. Want sex? There is plenty of casual dating and sex out there. It is much less consequential since it can be casual or even anonymous. Errands can be done by shopping online and having stuff delivered. Home improvements and housework can be done by hiring someone. Go to a massage therapist and they are professionally trained.
Couples could also use outsourcing to reduce their hassle and stress. But they often don't. Instead they rely on each other. Being single means you either have to do it all by yourself, which can be hard, or just outsource some of it.
And your point is ?????? Do you really think that couple's don't outsource?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Right. So married people commonly make their own clothes, grow their own wheat to grind to make bread, slaughter the cows they keep for milk when they want to eat a hamburger. Uh-huh.
Indeed. Married people also outsource; they hire cleaning companies; grass cutters; babysitters, cooks . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Please explain how two men can "have a child together". Likewise, two women. I passed high school biology (and several university classes in biology) and am dying to know HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they get genes from both parents into that child?
I don't believe the poster you quoted used the word 'together'. He said two men can have a child. IF you have gone to a university . . surely you have heard of adoption? Or surrogacy?
You seem to think that past generations are somehow less selfish and more considerate to the health of a society. I don't think people differ much that way.They did it because of social pressure. Today's people are given the freedom to choose.
They were much more conscientious then our current generation. A study of USA history, political history, social problems and psychology in conjunction with critical thinking to draw conclusions based on a combination of all of those subjects will affirm exactly what I said.
Yes and this is exactly the problem with the recent generation's view on marriage. They believe it should be a relationship of convenience. Its the "I'm not going to work at this relationship, change or adopt new habits to make it work" attitude people have these days. Back in the days a couple would actually try to make it work.
Presently, marriage has become a gimmick to many. Where once they tire of it they just let get rid of it. It's not that people in the past "put up with BS they didn't have to" and this generation has transcended that backward thinking; its the opposite. The current generations have completely forgotten the integral role marriage plays in establishing a healthy and balanced society/community. This is why the generations of past valued marriage and tried harder to work out their problems to stay married. This degradation of our society/community can be clearly seen throughout the country in the form of a decay of moral's, compassion, empathy, work ethic etc.
Okay but what's the point of working on a marriage to make it last if two people just don't get along? Why make yourself unhappy just so that you can be happy? You can still choose to marry, but marry the right person. Don't waste time on the wrong person. All the society gets is two unhappy adults and their unhappy children. That doesn't do anything good to the society, does it?
Your second paragraph sounds like social conservatives talking. Does being single bother other people then? Just as people invalidate singletons lifestyle, they end up validating it. The jealousy and bitterness seem to suggest that being single has advantages. But actually being single isn't all that awesome. It's just another way of living life.
They were much more conscientious then our current generation. A study of USA history, political history, social problems and psychology in conjunction with critical thinking to draw conclusions based on a combination of all of those subjects will affirm exactly what I said.
Well this is the result of the battles liberals fought. From free love movements in the early 20th century, we have come a long way. Socialism ultimately is one big community. Instead of each family taking care of their own kids, the society has decided to take care of one another's kids. America is getting there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
