Children's Right to a Mother and Father

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by skmo »

Thinker wrote:The US Declaration of Independence used to be honored and it reads,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Seems pretty obvious that we all have such rights from CREATION/conception.
Keep in mind, however, these words were written by a man who decided that his 14-16 year old slave girl didn't have the right to refuse sex with him, seeing as how she was his property.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by skmo »

Thinker wrote:Yet, the OP/Topic in this thread is about whether government has the right to legally deny children a mother or father in favor of "rights" of couples with homosexual preferences.
Well, that's an easy one to answer: Yes, they do.

Is it right? No. Is it proper? No. Is it in the best interest of society? No. Is it moral? No.

However, legal rights and moral rights are two different things. We have laws to allow society to function smoothly because we can't always agree on what is and isn't moral. Because of this, we have laws that make compromises and if we're lucky, do a decent job of providing an optimum situation to bring happiness and success. Our legal structure and our moral/ethical/religious/spiritual structure are separate, and that's good, overall. The price of freedom is the willingness to accept wrong choices, from ourselves and from others. Until we have actual divine leadership, we have to do the best we can with what we have.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

The problem is the way marriage was legally changed to include certain sexual distortion. It was not legally sound. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law - especially when the people voted against it but some wanted it anyway and forced it. Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained this before he was found dead in his hotel room,

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

I was inspired by these kids’ simple but brave way of defending true marriage...

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Fiannan »

Image

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Lately I’ve been thinking about children and divorce. I would hate to not have a full home but have to be shuffled back and forth to two 1/2 homes. I believe unless in cases of abuse, affair or addiction that disrupts family life - couples should make something work for their kids - to keep the family intact.

On Sean-Hannady talk radio today, this guy was saying how a survey found that of all people in that prison, not one of them grew up with both parents married/together!! He also explained how he believed his 20-year drug addiction stemmed from the trauma of his parents divorcing when he was 7.

Believe me, I know marriage isn’t easy. But I know more people could eat humble pie and make it work and thereby not hurt their kids and each other so much.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Homosexual activists show more concern for adults’ sexual deviations than the well-being of children. A woman’s raised by homosexual parents speaks out against homosexual “marriage” and supports traditional marriage between a Mann and a woman.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Juliet »

I think every marriage is under attack and if you can't learn to cry out Jesus then you won't make it. Satan can and will defeat your marriage unless you call him on his game.

We are not supposed to have any gods before God and God brings a family together and seals it. That means happiness comes from righteous behavior not your spouse's behavior.

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Pseudonym »

It is not that I disagree - but I think (maybe) I have a different point of view. It is my point of view that the cognitive responsibility lies with adults. As much as children's right sound exciting to talk about - Children are dependent on adults. I used the phrase "cognitive responsibility" because if there is no one willing to be cognitively responsible - the only possible outcome is unjust.

I believe that we can all agree that the best possible outcome for children is that they are born to biological parents (obviously an adult man and an adult woman) that are both cognitively responsible. This means that the parents are well aware of what they are doing and are willing and able to be responsible for their actions and the outcome of their actions. Again I have a little phrase "willing and able". Obviously if one of the biological parents dies (especially a unplanned death) then the reality is that they were not able to be responsible for their creation of a child regardless of how willing they were. Generally in our society children are not legally emancipated until they are 18. That is a long time.

And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Pseudonym wrote: March 8th, 2020, 5:52 pm...And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.
I'm not sure I understand your perspective. So please correct me if I'm mistaken.

What do you mean by "development of natural resources"? Solar power etc? Or as one of the founding fathers said our richest resource is our workforce - people - and in this case children. So were you suggesting people (who?) who termed Liberalism, see it criminal to kill children in abortion, but see no problem with the cognitive sickness of parents, who are responsible for children?

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Pseudonym »

Thinker wrote: March 19th, 2020, 8:07 pm
Pseudonym wrote: March 8th, 2020, 5:52 pm...And so we have permutations of possibilities even with the most noble of intentions. I think I can understand a breakdown of two parent families. As a retired physicists I also have a good handle on methods of defining variations in complex systems (Chaos Theory). Given these parameters - I am confused by what has become the social-political view of what is termed "Liberalism" - that is sure the development of natural resources by the human species is - on one hand considered criminal but the changing of biological parents as a cognitive responsibility is not problem at all - not just for biological parents but for the entire society????

I think our liberal friends and some logical wires crossed backwards in their brains.
I'm not sure I understand your perspective. So please correct me if I'm mistaken.

What do you mean by "development of natural resources"? Solar power etc? Or as one of the founding fathers said our richest resource is our workforce - people - and in this case children. So were you suggesting people (who?) who termed Liberalism, see it criminal to kill children in abortion, but see no problem with the cognitive sickness of parents, who are responsible for children?
Thank you for your question. I will try to explain with a little more detail. All things that we observe and understand in our physical universe exist in what is called a state of equilibrium or balance. This defines partial physics, solar systems and super clusters. If the parameters of a complex system (or any system) is altered beyond the threshold of equilibrium then the entire system will achieve a new state of equilibrium. This is the essence of Chaos Theory. This theory is at the bases of all environmental arguments against human development. That we will change the balance of things and create a new state of balance that will no longer support life as we know it. This is the argument for preserving endangered species as well as the argument for human caused atmospheric carbon. The bases of the argument is that we should not "test" the thresholds of balance of nature for fear of catastrophic changes.

But society is having no difficulty or reservation in changing the parameters that define the human nuclear family. Biologically all human families and the preservation of the species is completely dependent on the preservation of the male and female sexual relationship from which the species is propagated. It is scientifically known and demonstrated that many species have become extinct because of changes within the mating environment. For example it is believe that the Neanderthal species possibly became extinct with less than a 2% change in the repudiation rate of females during their reproductive prime age. Keep in mind that it is believed that the Neanderthal species existed for almost 100,000 years before becoming extinct.

In short there is great fear in very minor environmental changes but none what-so-ever that any change in the human species reproduction behavior to be of any consequence at all.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Pseudonym wrote: March 20th, 2020, 12:30 pmThank you for your question. I will try to explain with a little more detail. All things that we observe and understand in our physical universe exist in what is called a state of equilibrium or balance. This defines partial physics, solar systems and super clusters. If the parameters of a complex system (or any system) is altered beyond the threshold of equilibrium then the entire system will achieve a new state of equilibrium. This is the essence of Chaos Theory. This theory is at the bases of all environmental arguments against human development. That we will change the balance of things and create a new state of balance that will no longer support life as we know it. This is the argument for preserving endangered species as well as the argument for human caused atmospheric carbon. The bases of the argument is that we should not "test" the thresholds of balance of nature for fear of catastrophic changes.

But society is having no difficulty or reservation in changing the parameters that define the human nuclear family. Biologically all human families and the preservation of the species is completely dependent on the preservation of the male and female sexual relationship from which the species is propagated. It is scientifically known and demonstrated that many species have become extinct because of changes within the mating environment. For example it is believe that the Neanderthal species possibly became extinct with less than a 2% change in the repudiation rate of females during their reproductive prime age. Keep in mind that it is believed that the Neanderthal species existed for almost 100,000 years before becoming extinct.

In short there is great fear in very minor environmental changes but none what-so-ever that any change in the human species reproduction behavior to be of any consequence at all.
Ok, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

There are double standards/hypocrisy or whatever...
*As you mentioned, being obsessed about environment... while ignoring the more immediate & influential environment (messing with reproduction/parenting).
*Demanding rights while denying others’ other rights: abortion, homosexual-based anti-free speech & anti-religious punishment, unjust wars...

I’ll stop there to keep it on topic, but there are others.

Being fascinated with psychology, I wonder WHY some are so oblivious as to how they display hypocrisy or double standards. Sometimes it’s flat out projection. What could prevent this? Education - but of what and how? I think critical thinking (learning to correct cognitive distortions & logical fallacies) ought to be a prerequisite for HS graduation - introducing it much earlier - maybe 5th grade or so. Emotional intelligence is also important - considered more a factor in success than IQ. This is why I see school as more than just academic but social - though it’s a messy trial and error process.

What do you think are possible answers to this seemingly increasingly prevalent behavior and a related issue: herd mentality?

Pseudonym
captain of 100
Posts: 288

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Pseudonym »

Thinker wrote: March 20th, 2020, 12:59 pm What do you think are possible answers to this seemingly increasingly prevalent behavior and a related issue: herd mentality?
I think Brigham Young has one of the best answers I have encountered. He said, "When personal pleasure is involved, intelligence and reason is thrown out the window."

That is the cause - the cure or for any accomplishment is in discipline. We cannot effect any thinking or action beyond our own and we cannot control ourselves (including thoughts and actions) without discipline. As important as love is to human relationships - no one can separate love from lust without intelligence. It is human intelligence that makes mankind superior to all other forms of life on this planet. Whenever I hear someone say that they are following their heart - I an quite sure a train wreak is inevitable in their life. I think we should be more concerned in life with what we know and understand - than what we want or think with our emotions to desire.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Silver Pie »

Thinker wrote: January 7th, 2014, 9:16 am Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...
As someone who grew up with an absent/divorced father, I completely agree with you.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13999

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Niemand »

Silver Pie wrote: October 10th, 2023, 9:28 pm
Thinker wrote: January 7th, 2014, 9:16 am Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...
As someone who grew up with an absent/divorced father, I completely agree with you.
Sort of. In not all cases is this possible. An older widow(er), for example is going to struggle more finding a new spouse/step-parent for their children.

I had an opportunity years ago to move in with a woman who had three children. To be frank, it was a deterrent and it never happened. It was daunting for me to become a stepfather. If I had married her (which wasn't on the cards), then it would have made things more complex. Taking on other men's children is complex to say the least.

It is certainly the ideal, but I can see scenarios where this is going to be difficult or impractical. If one of the parents is criminal or abusive, I think it is understandable if they are removed from the equation. But normally this happens because the two parents are simply not getting on, or one falls in love with someone else.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Silver Pie »

Thinker wrote: January 7th, 2014, 9:16 am Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...
Silver Pie wrote: October 10th, 2023, 9:28 pm As someone who grew up with an absent/divorced father, I completely agree with you.
Niemand wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:29 pm Sort of. In not all cases is this possible. An older widow(er), for example is going to struggle more finding a new spouse/step-parent for their children.

It is certainly the ideal, but I can see scenarios where this is going to be difficult or impractical. If one of the parents is criminal or abusive, I think it is understandable if they are removed from the equation. But normally this happens because the two parents are simply not getting on, or one falls in love with someone else.
Perhaps I should have clarified that each child needs a good mother and father to thrive in this world. The focus is on the need the child has, not on whether or not an older widow(er) can or cannot find a new spouse for their children.

I did not have a father. There was a man who genetics said was my father, who I recall seeing three times (the last time was in his coffin when I was 12).

I stand by what Thinker and I say: That a child needs 2 parents of opposite sexes. Obviously, good ones (my mom told me that if she'd stayed married, our home life would have been as horrible as my best friend, who had verbally abusive parents). That doesn't mean that every child gets that (I didn't). It doesn't negate the need in the soul of each child.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Silver Pie »

Niemand wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:29 pm I had an opportunity years ago to move in with a woman who had three children. To be frank, it was a deterrent and it never happened. It was daunting for me to become a stepfather. If I had married her (which wasn't on the cards), then it would have made things more complex. Taking on other men's children is complex to say the least.
You added a paragraph while I was writing my reply. 😁

No doubt, it is daunting. My perspective on that was skewed (as I found out long after I grew up) because I had an uncle who married a woman with two children, a brother who married a woman with two children, and a brother who married a woman with one child. The last brother didn't legally adopt his stepson because they needed the income from the child's social security (his father was dead); but that's the only reason. The other two did legally adopt their stepchildren - and in our family, none of the 5 are considered "steps". I found out, during my second marriage, that that was probably an anomaly (though, to be truthful, the man didn't treat his own children so great, either).

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Silver Pie wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:38 pm
Thinker wrote: January 7th, 2014, 9:16 am Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...
Silver Pie wrote: October 10th, 2023, 9:28 pm As someone who grew up with an absent/divorced father, I completely agree with you.
Niemand wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:29 pm Sort of. In not all cases is this possible. An older widow(er), for example is going to struggle more finding a new spouse/step-parent for their children.

It is certainly the ideal, but I can see scenarios where this is going to be difficult or impractical. If one of the parents is criminal or abusive, I think it is understandable if they are removed from the equation. But normally this happens because the two parents are simply not getting on, or one falls in love with someone else.
Perhaps I should have clarified that each child needs a good mother and father to thrive in this world. The focus is on the need the child has, not on whether or not an older widow(er) can or cannot find a new spouse for their children.

I did not have a father. There was a man who genetics said was my father, who I recall seeing three times (the last time was in his coffin when I was 12).

I stand by what Thinker and I say: That a child needs 2 parents of opposite sexes. Obviously, good ones (my mom told me that if she'd stayed married, our home life would have been as horrible as my best friend, who had verbally abusive parents). That doesn't mean that every child gets that (I didn't). It doesn't negate the need in the soul of each child.
I wish you didn’t have to go through that, but maybe as your mom suggested, it was better than it could’ve been. Also, it made you into the great person you are now. Wisdom = healed pain.

Years ago, before I married, when I had a long lunch, I’d often listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She seriously changed a couple significant trajectories of my life! She made me realize that having sex without marriage is “shaking up” & not a good beginning for children who may come of it. Also, she suggested that children need parents. As if that isn’t obvious! But consider how many children are raised by “day-care-orphanages” or others who are not their parents. For some maybe like your mom or widows, they have no choice, but many, they simply choose more money/bigger house, career etc over raising their children themselves. And she suggested once children are in the picture, parents owe it to them to do all they can to put their children first (not divorce just for new sex etc). And not remarry which then puts the children 2nd or 3rd & they are kind of homeless - shuffled between 2 part-time homes.

User avatar
Seed Starter
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1446
Contact:

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Seed Starter »

Thinker wrote: October 11th, 2023, 4:17 pm
Silver Pie wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:38 pm
Thinker wrote: January 7th, 2014, 9:16 am Not only do we each need a mother and father TO EXIST, we also need them to thrive in this world...
Silver Pie wrote: October 10th, 2023, 9:28 pm As someone who grew up with an absent/divorced father, I completely agree with you.
Niemand wrote: October 11th, 2023, 3:29 pm Sort of. In not all cases is this possible. An older widow(er), for example is going to struggle more finding a new spouse/step-parent for their children.

It is certainly the ideal, but I can see scenarios where this is going to be difficult or impractical. If one of the parents is criminal or abusive, I think it is understandable if they are removed from the equation. But normally this happens because the two parents are simply not getting on, or one falls in love with someone else.
Perhaps I should have clarified that each child needs a good mother and father to thrive in this world. The focus is on the need the child has, not on whether or not an older widow(er) can or cannot find a new spouse for their children.

I did not have a father. There was a man who genetics said was my father, who I recall seeing three times (the last time was in his coffin when I was 12).

I stand by what Thinker and I say: That a child needs 2 parents of opposite sexes. Obviously, good ones (my mom told me that if she'd stayed married, our home life would have been as horrible as my best friend, who had verbally abusive parents). That doesn't mean that every child gets that (I didn't). It doesn't negate the need in the soul of each child.
I wish you didn’t have to go through that, but maybe as your mom suggested, it was better than it could’ve been. Also, it made you into the great person you are now. Wisdom = healed pain.

Years ago, before I married, when I had a long lunch, I’d often listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She seriously changed a couple significant trajectories of my life! She made me realize that having sex without marriage is “shaking up” & not a good beginning for children who may come of it. Also, she suggested that children need parents. As if that isn’t obvious! But consider how many children are raised by “day-care-orphanages” or others who are not their parents. For some maybe like your mom or widows, they have no choice, but many, they simply choose more money/bigger house, career etc over raising their children themselves. And she suggested once children are in the picture, parents owe it to them to do all they can to put their children first (not divorce just for new sex etc). And not remarry which then puts the children 2nd or 3rd & they are kind of homeless - shuffled between 2 part-time homes.
These days I hear the spin that kids get double the awesome life like it's an advantage to split a home. Yay double the siblings, double the grandparents giving me gifts at christmas and parents get to live the good life having multiple days off from parenting. Now kids can vacation with both parents and both parents can take turns vacationing without kids. So blessed... I used to feel sorry for children from broken homes and now people have convinced me how much better life can be. On social media I get the impression that some are flaunting their freedom and then I see posts about parents going on vacation without their kids and how it isn't fun when it happens all the time. Save the families!

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Children's Right to a Mother and Father

Post by Thinker »

Seed Starter wrote: October 11th, 2023, 5:40 pm
Thinker wrote: October 11th, 2023, 4:17 pm I wish you didn’t have to go through that, but maybe as your mom suggested, it was better than it could’ve been. Also, it made you into the great person you are now. Wisdom = healed pain.

Years ago, before I married, when I had a long lunch, I’d often listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She seriously changed a couple significant trajectories of my life! She made me realize that having sex without marriage is “shaking up” & not a good beginning for children who may come of it. Also, she suggested that children need parents. As if that isn’t obvious! But consider how many children are raised by “day-care-orphanages” or others who are not their parents. For some maybe like your mom or widows, they have no choice, but many, they simply choose more money/bigger house, career etc over raising their children themselves. And she suggested once children are in the picture, parents owe it to them to do all they can to put their children first (not divorce just for new sex etc). And not remarry which then puts the children 2nd or 3rd & they are kind of homeless - shuffled between 2 part-time homes.
These days I hear the spin that kids get double the awesome life like it's an advantage to split a home. Yay double the siblings, double the grandparents giving me gifts at christmas and parents get to live the good life having multiple days off from parenting. Now kids can vacation with both parents and both parents can take turns vacationing without kids. So blessed... I used to feel sorry for children from broken homes and now people have convinced me how much better life can be. On social media I get the impression that some are flaunting their freedom and then I see posts about parents going on vacation without their kids and how it isn't fun when it happens all the time. Save the families!
Whenever someone with children says divorce & remarrying are better - it is the adults saying it, not the children. What child would say, “More than anything, I want my dad (or mom) to have a better sex life!”?? Some parents just tell themselves lies to justify their prideful, selfish lack of empathy for their children. (Too harsh?)

And yet, it is so common in the church for adults to break up a family over something trivial & then the children suffer most. Parents have given up their food so their children can eat. Parents have even given up their lives to protect their children. Yet parents can’t handle being with the spouse they chose to make children with?? Too much sacrifice?

Believe me, I understand it isn’t easy. But who said life or parenting should be easy?

Post Reply