184Likesit can of course be argued with on the basis thatOriginally Posted by Radix
a) a woman with no ovaries has absolutely 0 chance of producing an egg
and
b) people aren't homosexual by choice any more than people are infertile by choice.
it can of course be argued with on the basis that
a) a woman with no ovaries has absolutely 0 chance of producing an egg
and
b) people aren't homosexual by choice any more than people are infertile by choice.
I didn't say that I believed it to be false. I said that it's not obvious to me that it's true and that *one possible explanation for this* would be if the assertion was false.
The point of asking for the evidence behind your claim is to test whether it is in fact false or whether it was merely something which was true but not obviously true to me.
Here is my starting point: it seems plausible to suggest that children need parents who are loving and supportive of them. I can think of no way in which a man could be loving or supportive of a child which would be inferior to a way in which a woman would be loving and supportive of a child.
If there are ways in which this would be possible, I would like to know what they are. If the claim is that it is just obvious, then I assume people who make this claim are in a position to provide the reasons.
The alternative is that children require something in addition to love and support which can only be supplied by a man, and something else which can only be supplied by a woman. I would like to know what these things are, if that is the claim being made.
There are uncontroversial objective claims which can be made about the likelihood of a constructive discussion, given certain facts. For example, if a poster merely asserts a claim and is unwilling to provide the reasons for the assertion, this is something which will be straightforwardly inimical to a productive discussion.
Interesting post.
Our view of the constitution is warped by the hatred for it in RTE / The Irish Times - outlets with cultures designed by those who never could stand how the native aboriginals had retaken their country.
But even Dev didn't want to stop gay people living whatever life they wanted.
He indulged MacLiammor and Hilton Edwards.
He took his hat off in respect when the remains of Roger Casement were brought back to Ireland in 1965.
The constitution has had a lot of hate projected onto it by those with a hidden agenda.
But it might actually be compatible with same sex marriage.
I do think, though, that kids need mothers and fathers and that in the case of adoption, the constitution would rightly uphold a child's right to be adopted by a traditional family.
But as for allowing two people to live their lives as they wish and fulfill their love for each other - I'd be delighted if it upheld that as well.
I don't agree with havnig to have a referendum on same sex marriage: No majority has a right to decide on or infringe the happiness and liberties of two adults.
We need to reduce and limit government in this country, not expand it, and having referendums to decide whether adults can be happy or not is a step too far.
On adoption though, this is different: Children's rights to a mother and father must be protected.
I hope whatever decision is taken will at least allow for the two issues to be separated on: Same sex marriage without adoption should be passed by universal consent - public opinion here doesn't matter.
But by the same token, no one has a right to take a child's right to a mother and father. Even if that right cannot always be upheld (death, abandonment) it should be stated as a reference value in our constitution.
There is no such right legally speaking.
If there was then children would be removed from single parents.
You're squirming now.
I wasn't the one who made the claim. In fact, it wasn't a claim in any case, it was an observation, and one which I happen to agree with. We are somewhat stuck because you keep on insisting that it may be "merely something which was true but not obviously true to me", and my jury is out on whether that is a politic, academic avoidance for the sake of discussion, or whether you cannot truly see that male as well as female parental input to a child's upbringing is an optimum, and something to be desired.
*I suspect, given the nature of your input to this board, that it all hinges on a form of academic argument for you - and I do not mean any offence by this.
*That is an example of the sort of academic, on-paper approach, to which I alluded above.
Nobody was ever suggesting that the input of either gender was either inferior or superior. Complementary, yes. Exposing the developing child to the natural traits of both genders in a family environment, yes. There is a sequence here. Go for it.
Hands-on experience is sometimes difficult to put in words, and indeed, it is something that often cannot be replaced by words, like Mark Twain and his cat-by-a-tail tale.
I don't really see why. An assertion may be self-evident, borne of experience, generally accepted, previously supported well known and so on. If you don't 'get' why an assertion made does not seem plausible to you, then it is possible the deficiency is on your side of the fence and further reseach on your part is needed. That is part of the cut and thrust of any discussion.
By correction your characterization of my earlier comments? I don't think that amounts to "squirming" on any reasonable definition.
You appear to agree that the essentialist claim is obviously true. It's certainly possible that you think it's obviously true for different reasons than the poster who originally made it, but that wouldn't suggest there would be any less reason to ask you for an explanation (given that none is likely to come from elsewhere in this case).
I'm attempting to be precise in what my claim is. My claim is that it is not obvious to me what it is that a man provides a child as a parent which a woman does not, and vice verse.
The idea you suggest above, that the *optimum* for a child requires the input of a male and female is a slightly different claim, which is stronger than merely holding that there are qualitative differences between how men and women parent. If there are differences, it does not necessarily follow that the optimum for a child includes both male and female; there may be differences which do not matter in terms of a child's upbringing.
Before that claim can be examined, the weaker thesis needs an explanation, i.e. that there are things men provide by way of parenting which women cannot and vice versa.
I'm not sure what the alternative is. Although I suppose I am technically a kind of academic if one were to use a fairly liberal definition of the term.
I take it that the idea is that there are "natural traits" possessed by men and women, which compliment each other, and that the child needs to be exposed to these traits in a way which is not possible given two men or two women.
That's at least two, possibly three or even four, distinct claims. Can you give an example of a "natural male trait" and a "natural female trait"? (Preferably ones that compliment each other, and preferably ones you think are relevant to child-rearing).
That was a requirement in some places, never a universal rule. It was never the law in Ireland or the UK for example that you had to be the same race to marry.
