OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 05:36:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ontario says child can have 2 moms  (Read 3176 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« on: January 07, 2007, 09:30:31 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070104/wl_canada_nm/canada_parents_ca_col_3

the fantasy that nature is socially-constructed (or in this case 'deconstructed') continues.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2007, 04:05:50 AM »

This is outstanding! Smiley There is still much work to be done before we will free ourselves from the oppressive morality that we find ourselves under, which was a poorly formed, man-made system to begin with, and is all the more useless in that it was originally designed for an agrarian, backward society, which was about as far as you could get from a modern, commerce-based, freedom-loving, intellectually and scientifically advanced society (in comparison to the ancient word).
Logged
Serbian Patriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2007, 11:43:19 AM »

This is outstanding! Smiley
Roll Eyes
If 2 mothers and a father is possible, why not 5 mothers, 3 fathers and a horse as the 8th parent?
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2007, 12:19:23 PM »

Quote
If 2 mothers and a father is possible, why not 5 mothers, 3 fathers and a horse as the 8th parent?

Though it's not a good idea to follow people down slippery slopes, I'll give it a shot. A horse can't be the 8th parent because horses aren't self-aware, and therefore can't enter into legal agreements. And I think being two different animals might cause some complications as well. As far as the humans go, I don't have a problem with 5 mothers and 3 fathers, though I can understand why people brought up in a culture that worships monogamy would find this idea offensive. Perhaps a good compromise is to do what some cultures have done, in limiting the number of spouses to 3 or 4.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 12:23:16 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
SmoT
I am a verb
Banned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2007, 01:19:12 PM »

I don't have a problem with this. To me it is more important that somehow BOTH sexes be involved in the childs upbringing. And if this gets that to happen - then it is okay by me.
Logged

"I'm not saying you have to SmoT her or anything..." - Asteriktos
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,325


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2007, 03:01:31 PM »

SO two men and two women would work for you?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2007, 03:10:16 PM »

For me? No. Smiley But if it works for someone else, and they are serious about building and maintaining a family, and are not just what amounts to swingers living together, then I don't have a problem with that. Of course, I think it'd be much more difficult to have such a family in the U.S. without running into legal problems, not to mention the stigma that the people would be exposed to (though the stimga issue wasn't a mark against interracial marriages, IMO, and it's not a major one here either). And I would concede that very few people could maintain such a family (though most people have a hard time maintaining one-on-one relationships, but that's hardly a mark against monogamy).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 03:11:50 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
SmoT
I am a verb
Banned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2007, 03:16:35 PM »

So two men and two women would work for you?

Not necessarily. Only because I see more legal complications than ethical ones. It's very seldom that 4 people can agree on things when it comes to raising a child.
Logged

"I'm not saying you have to SmoT her or anything..." - Asteriktos
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,325


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2007, 03:26:56 PM »

How about 1 man and 5 women...?  (mormons seemed to make it work...?)
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2007, 03:42:02 PM »

I don't know if you are asking SmoT or me, but I wouldn't dismiss that situation as immoral or impossible a priori. However, I do think there should be a cut off point somewhere, and 5 women and 1 man is pushing it, IMO. Of course, a cut off point would be somewhat arbitrary, though perhaps some studies could examine what exactly the limits are for such families actually working. A man and a wife with 4 kids seem to have enough love and patience for each other to make things work. Of course, that is a different situation, but I do think it indicates that by simply adding a person or two you do not automatically make a situation unlivable. If different people accepted roles within the family, that would make it easiest, though obviously the roles would have to be not only accepted by the people, but I think a natural part of who they are. E.g., some people are naturally workaholics, other stay at home moms, etc. Having 4 workaholics in a family who have completely different political, religious, and social beliefs and practices, and completely different ideas about raising children, how to spend recreational time, etc. is just a recipe for disaster, just as it would also often be in a monogamous relationship.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 03:42:18 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
SmoT
I am a verb
Banned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2007, 04:06:17 PM »

I don't know if you are asking SmoT or me..

I wouldn't answer it anyway. Cause the next question would be "How about 2 men and 3.5 women?" and on and on and on....
Logged

"I'm not saying you have to SmoT her or anything..." - Asteriktos
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,325


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2007, 11:04:14 PM »

A mindreader I see....very dangerous to be around... Wink

I was really going to stop at that fyi. 

I'm just asking in general to see what people think would work. 

Are either of you not happy with the 1 man 1 woman system?  Or do you think that any combination is valid as long as its psychologically proven to work? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2007, 11:26:29 PM »

It would seem to me that the advancement of monogamy is essential not for religious reasons, but for evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons. Polygamy encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality...all of which are contrary to the interests of a post-enlightenment society. The most significant problems in the history of humanity are caused by gender inequality, it would hardly be benificial to encourage the practice responsible for these hardships.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2007, 11:35:30 PM »

With that said, I can't wait until the first woman gives birth to a child cloned from her own DNA...it will blow our conceptions about family and nature out of the water, so to speak. Then there will certainly be the day when a child has multiple genetic donors...so I would emphasize monogamy more from a social standpoint, science will, before too terribly long, completely destroy our traditional understandings of reproduction.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SmoT
I am a verb
Banned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2007, 12:10:16 AM »

Are either of you not happy with the 1 man 1 woman system?  Or do you think that any combination is valid as long as its psychologically proven to work? 

Any combination is valid as long as it is not detrimental to any children brought into the environment. Which means for some, even one man and one woman is a bad combination!

However, I do think that the more people the more problems will arise. So 3 would probably be the limit in any western culture.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 12:12:10 AM by SmoT » Logged

"I'm not saying you have to SmoT her or anything..." - Asteriktos
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,536



« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2007, 07:12:17 AM »

Serb,

Quote
Are either of you not happy with the 1 man 1 woman system?  Or do you think that any combination is valid as long as its psychologically proven to work?   

I think that if something works well for someone, then that's fine for them. Some men (and in much rarer cases, women) have issues staying faithful to one person. Of course, the response would probably be "Oh yeah, they can't be faithful to one person, and you think they'll be faithful to two?"  But the answer to that is, I think, maybe. If something like Darwinian evolution happened, and men really are geared towards getting it on with as many women as possible, then it would be perfectly understandable that some men might not be effected by the cultural pressure to be monogamous. But would they be satisifed at 2, or 3, or would they just be completely promiscuous? I think it's definately possible for people to learn to stop at 2, or 3. If men can condition themselves to stop at 1, I don't see any reason that they couldn't condition themselves to stop at 2 or 3. The hardest thing would be the multiple mother-in-laws  Cheesy

As far as happiness goes, I wouldn't have a problem living in a monogamous relationship for the rest of my life. On the other hand, I am not against the possibility of something non-monogamous (though outright polygamy is illegal, so that's not what I'm talking about). I can't foresee a woman as perfect as my wife coming into the picture, though. Or a woman who'd put up with me for that matter!

GIC

Quote
It would seem to me that the advancement of monogamy is essential not for religious reasons, but for evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons. Polygamy encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality...all of which are contrary to the interests of a post-enlightenment society. The most significant problems in the history of humanity are caused by gender inequality, it would hardly be benificial to encourage the practice responsible for these hardships.

What's interesting about this is that some would argue that "Marriage encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality". I don't think either position is fully correct. And to whatever extent they are correct (e.g., having multiple partners causes jealousy among others), they are certainly not a rational justification for barring the practice. Shall we also ban monogamous marriage, sports, and military service because they cause and facilitate such unhealthy qualities? Of course the answer is that we can learn to control ourselves. A military man is aggressive, to a point. Sports shoves in your face the physical differences between the sexes, but that doesn't mean we should totally chuck all sports in which either men or women excel. Particularly strange to me is the gender equality idea. This might be true of a society which practices or permits polygyny, but that is not what is being talked about (by me at least). I don't see polygamy as promoting gender inequality in any way. Why would I support a system that oppresses women, when I think they are superior?  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 10, 2007, 09:44:35 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2007, 09:31:36 AM »

What's interesting about this is that some would argue that "Marriage encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality". I don't think either position is fully correct. And to whatever extent they are correct (e.g., having multiple partners causes jealousy among others), they are certainly not a rational justification for barring the practice. Shall we also ban monogamous marriage, sports, and military service because they cause and facilitate such unhealthy qualities? Of course the answer is that we can learn to control ourselves. A military man is aggressive, to a point. Sports shoves in your face the physical differences between the sexes, but that doesn't mean we should totally chuck all sports in which either men or women excel. Particularly strange to me is the gender equality idea. This might be true of a society which practices or permits polygyny, but that is not what is being talked about (by me at least). I don't see polygamy as promoting gender equality in any way. Why would I support a system that oppresses women, when I think they are superior?  Smiley

I will confess that not everyone is in agreement on this matter, but those who do oppose monogamy on account of being oppressive generally do not object to it per se, but rather to the institution of marriage which comes with it, most famously this position was advocated by Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. To expand the institution of marriage to include polygamy is hardly a solution to the problems presented by Engels, but rather is to expand them to an even greater scale. Fortunately, society as a whole has made it possible to overcome many of these problems, such as making it easy for a woman to divorce an abusive or controling husband and allowing careers outside the home. We're a long ways from solving all of society's ills and the evils that can be brought about by the institution of marriage, but we have come a long ways in the last 160 years. We still need cultural strives to ensure that women living a domesticated life, which is perhaps the greatest source of social inequality, will, though generally economically prohibited today, become culturally unacceptable even in times of great economic affluence. I dont know that I would go as far as Engels and insist on state care and upbringing of all children, but it's certainly something to be taken into consideration.

Of course, my arguments were generally from evolutionary science and comparative biology, specificially referencing Sexual Dimorphism and Testis Size, which though a not fully understood science has given us a degree of insight into the effects of social monogamy vs. social promiscuity/polygamy in evolution. Of course, from a biological perspective I hope that genetic engineering will be able to accomplish in a matter of years that which would take evolution several million, though evolution does tend to point to the egalitarian benifits of monogamy, which is an objective reason to prefer the same in inter-human relations.

As for sports, YES, by all means ban them...force the proletariat to resort to a hobby that would at least require a minimal amount of thought. On no other thing does our society waste so much time and resources with no real hope for gain or advancement in any form. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,325


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2007, 11:14:55 AM »

Quote
Of course, my arguments were generally from evolutionary science and comparative biology, specificially referencing Sexual Dimorphism and Testis Size, which though a not fully understood science has given us a degree of insight into the effects of social monogamy vs. social promiscuity/polygamy in evolution. Of course, from a biological perspective I hope that genetic engineering will be able to accomplish in a matter of years that which would take evolution several million, though evolution does tend to point to the egalitarian benifits of monogamy, which is an objective reason to prefer the same in inter-human relations.

And if your arguments were from a religious/Christian perspective? 

Actually....would that ever happen?   Wink Tongue
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2007, 11:46:50 AM »

And if your arguments were from a religious/Christian perspective? 

Actually....would that ever happen?   Wink Tongue

Um.... About that....

Honestly, it is good to get the scientific perspective from someone (since most won't even consider it!!!!) - and its a good way for GiC to keep himself out of trouble (relatively speaking)...  Wink
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tags: morality polyamory monogamy Canada liberal evolution biology homosexuality cultural taboo polygamy 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 46 queries.