mr dave |
07-24-2010 06:18 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA
(Post 905101)
Mr dave, I have a completely opposite view of a life-long love: it is about satisfying the immediate individuals, if it has any "purpose" at all. Just because it is true that people who procreate pass on their genes to a future generation doesn't mean this is a relationship's purpose. Having a child is wonderful (though I don't see it as a "biological goal"), but it doesn't give more meaning to a couple's relationship that isn't there to begin with.
When the sun consumes the earth, NO ONE will be left (space travel escape is extremely unlikely), so believing that having a child somehow sustains or maintains love beyond parents' biological lives ignores that all life on earth will end. There will BE no earth eventually, given what stars do (fusion reactions eventually run out of fuel). I feel that loving each other at the moment is what is important, rather than trying to live through one's child. The only thing that we can say will last, when we love someone, is that the fact that we once loved that person will always be true. All biological signs of that love will eventually be completely non-existent.
Many hetero couples have no children. Should religions not sanctify relationships between a woman and a man unless they vow to have a child? Of course, religions can invite whom they wish to their "poker party" of value judgements, but I feel wise religions...if there is such a thing...would not turn biological possibility into a religious imperative.
|
this all fair and cool. this is also one of the reasons why i try to limit my lounge posting and try to not check the site more than once a day.
as for the sun consuming the earth, with my base personal philosophy revolving around being the universe i see it like a white blood cell consuming a red blood cell if it were to occur. at the same time if humanity doesn't figure out a way to step up from it's current idiocy between then and now i think we deserve it. yeah, i'm just a bit of a pessimist at times haha
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidasss
(Post 905108)
I agree, and I think most lgbtq activists do too, which is why no one is asking religious institutions to recognize gay marriages. What they're asking for is equal rights under the law. :\
I think the most important issue with gay couples raising children should be whether or not they can provide a safe and loving environment to their children, perpetuating social concepts of gender roles should be the least of anyone's concern (not to mention that I fail to see any actual benefit from having parents of different sexes. If you could name some I'd be much grateful).
|
you're right, i have a very depressing world view hehehe. i'd also REALLY like to agree with you're comment about lobbying for equal legal rights. but i was living in Ottawa when the legislation passed in Canada. it wasn't pretty on either side.
i'd also like to agree with that last part and to an extent i really do. as for examples here it is - it's not so much having parents of different sexes but having masculine and feminine role models, not necessarily male or female. the benefit is pretty simple, if you only get the perspective from one side then you'll have a skewed view of society when you approach it as an individual especially if you're of the opposite sex than your parents.
it's like how a lot of guys raised by single women have a hard time meeting women because they were raised to be the kind of respectful gentlemen their moms would have liked their dads to be while in turn raising their daughters to be ready to deal with the kind of douches their fathers turned out to be. it's hardly the end of the world but it is a pretty big pain in the ass since it reshapes your views on pretty much everyone that helped you shape yourself until that point.
|