Catchy. But only true wherever christianity has established its dominant doctrine.
I agree one needs a uterus to bear a child etc., but many times and many places have known family structures where several parents as a group had several children.
Raising children together as a group, often with fathers not even knowing which child is theirs specifically, has been quite common throughout history among primates (including humans) and other social animals.
Incidentally, so has non cis gender behavior, so have intersex physical traits, and many different forms of sexual expression.
I oppose to trans men in women’s bathrooms, in women’s sports, and to early intervention in children with or without gender issues, etc.
Also i would probably oppose any family structure that does not put the child first. But coming from a background where many parents lost their children and many children their parents, and many lost siblings, aunts, etc. i know a safe home filled with love does not need that many other conditions.
We’re social animals. Being loved and accepted is enough for any social animal to feel protected and happy. That, of course, has to include mental health and emotional stablility, but that would have to be a given anyway.
And although there’s many other reasons for people to parent a child than selfish ones, selfishness is not in itself a bad thing. I have much love to give. Wanting to give it is my self interest, wanting to receive it is the self interest of my loved ones. Reciprocating self interest is a basic ingredient in social behavior. Not a ‘bad’ one.
Summarizing, i wouldn’t think waiving around absolutes will solve anything. Many things are somewhat complicated, unfortunately. Flattening them into a single story will often prove counterproductive.
It has been proven by study after study that the best case outcomes scenario for a child is to be raised in a loving family with both biological parents. In a broken world, we should do everything possible to ensure that for every child.
The argument that 'culture makes it right' is the same argument as saying that there are cultures in the world - today and in the past - where slavery is acceptable, therefore slavery should be considered acceptable. There are also cases in the animal kingdom where animals 'enslave' others for their purposes.
This is an extreme example, but it shows this: Culture does not dictate truth. The reality that human rights are intrinsic cannot be denied.
Ultimately, it is impossible to remove the design from the human. Children were designed to be raised by biological parents and that is/was not determined by us.
The fact that Christianity and all the biological data match up is not a coincidence, but it does also means that you can put children first with no Christian agenda at all 👍 so you should!
Never stop friends . Behind you 100 percent. Stay the course.
Damn. Your pen is a scalpel, Josh. If the world wants clarity, it will keep your words around 🌎
a scalpel for a lobotomy
😂
Thank you ❤
OK, this proves it. Biology now #Racist. Biology to the Showers!
/s
Catchy. But only true wherever christianity has established its dominant doctrine.
I agree one needs a uterus to bear a child etc., but many times and many places have known family structures where several parents as a group had several children.
Raising children together as a group, often with fathers not even knowing which child is theirs specifically, has been quite common throughout history among primates (including humans) and other social animals.
Incidentally, so has non cis gender behavior, so have intersex physical traits, and many different forms of sexual expression.
I oppose to trans men in women’s bathrooms, in women’s sports, and to early intervention in children with or without gender issues, etc.
Also i would probably oppose any family structure that does not put the child first. But coming from a background where many parents lost their children and many children their parents, and many lost siblings, aunts, etc. i know a safe home filled with love does not need that many other conditions.
We’re social animals. Being loved and accepted is enough for any social animal to feel protected and happy. That, of course, has to include mental health and emotional stablility, but that would have to be a given anyway.
And although there’s many other reasons for people to parent a child than selfish ones, selfishness is not in itself a bad thing. I have much love to give. Wanting to give it is my self interest, wanting to receive it is the self interest of my loved ones. Reciprocating self interest is a basic ingredient in social behavior. Not a ‘bad’ one.
Summarizing, i wouldn’t think waiving around absolutes will solve anything. Many things are somewhat complicated, unfortunately. Flattening them into a single story will often prove counterproductive.
It has been proven by study after study that the best case outcomes scenario for a child is to be raised in a loving family with both biological parents. In a broken world, we should do everything possible to ensure that for every child.
The argument that 'culture makes it right' is the same argument as saying that there are cultures in the world - today and in the past - where slavery is acceptable, therefore slavery should be considered acceptable. There are also cases in the animal kingdom where animals 'enslave' others for their purposes.
This is an extreme example, but it shows this: Culture does not dictate truth. The reality that human rights are intrinsic cannot be denied.
Ultimately, it is impossible to remove the design from the human. Children were designed to be raised by biological parents and that is/was not determined by us.
The fact that Christianity and all the biological data match up is not a coincidence, but it does also means that you can put children first with no Christian agenda at all 👍 so you should!