Haven’t seen it either, not like I was born in 1968 anyways. I have a book with all of them, 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001 (Oddysey One, Two, Three, Final). But yeah, Clarke, in his novel, said there would be a base on the moon. Not exactly for tourists, but still, we don’t have any settlement there even now in 2008.

They also would do trips to Jupiter, although their capacities don’t seem to differ from ours much in that regards (they didn’t have faster-than-light stuff or anything). Well the trip from 2001 is the first I think. And we’ve yet to go to Mars because the government decided war was more important than space, since the Cold War ended.

Thanks, too, for the discussion, everyone! I love reading your comments. Whether we agree or agree to disagree, I am always learning something new from new friends.

Regards,

Jamie

As to your various scenarios that are not what I describe as the “ideal”, I have already exhausted my views on that:

“There are endless scenarios, and I will not go into them all, suffice it to say, we should as individuals strive to give our children excellence in every way and not make them “settle” for less.”

You do have me at a loss, as I have never seen “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

Some men like that role, some don’t, but they are pushed into it by society. Few women want an unemployed man even as a date, but most men don’t mind an unemployed woman. So men are pushed to work by the prevailing culture, while women are pushed to have children, and take care of them. Less in North America than say Japan though.

“A male with “feminine” qualities isn’t enough to compensate for a woman. My single mom could be pretty “butch” at times, but we still missed our daddy.”

You said yourself that you did fine anyways. And having two parents means your quality of life should also be at least marginally higher than a single parent. You’d also get more time with at least one of them, if not both. Consider instances where there is no child support because the father died, the mother HAS to work. While with two mothers, or two fathers, one can work, and the other raise the child or children, or both can accomodate a schedule to have equal time with them, while not straining to make ends meet.

“That said, you are way off here and what you believe, if applied to society as a whole, would mean disaster. A welfare state, prisons packed to the rafters, VERY busy therapists and psychiatrists…”

Yes, I’m sure that you’ve seen it happen before, and that you can accurately judge the results of an hypothetical scenario based on mental imagery alone.

So since imagining the future is so accurate, where’s my flying car from Back to the Future? And where’s the moon base from 2001: A space oddysey?

“So single mothers and single fathers who had a child the ‘biological way’ should forfeit their parental rights…? Cause that’s what you just said.”

Not even close. I realize, especially as the product of a single parent since I was a toddler, that things happen. It would not have been a good thing for me to be taken from my biological mother and sent to an orphanage, because as my biological mother we had a “connection” that should not be broken. It would have been ideal for me if my mother and father had taken their vows in marriage seriously and worked harder to stay together, at least for the sake of their children. That didn’t happen, and guess who was missing important building blocks psychologically and emotionally? Me. I am not whining, I am a responsible adult who takes care of my own family, and I do not blame my parents for who I am today. However, they could have made better decisions. If only one biological parent exists or is capable of being in the picture for whatever reason, than it is what it is, let that person do their best like my mother did while raising 2 boys on her own. There are endless scenarios, and I will not go into them all, suffice it to say, we should as individuals strive to give our children excellence in every way and not make them “settle” for less.

“…two, or more parents.”

Your sense of what is “logical” is nowhere near a barometer for what is best for children. A feminine male is just as good as a female? Gibberish.

“…juggle the nurture and the time at work,…”

You have relegated the responsibility of parenting to task management while at the same time made my point about one man and one woman. Men are “wired” to be the bread-winner, hunter-gatherer, etc while women are more in tune to emotion and therefore better suited for nurturing. I learn how to properly nurture from my wife daily, not because I am not sensitive (raised by a single mom, remember) or because she reads more, but because of our fundamental differences that help us to complement each other. This is why 2 males or 2 females isn’t adequate.

A male with “feminine” qualities isn’t enough to compensate for a woman. My single mom could be pretty “butch” at times, but we still missed our daddy.

“Frankly, I think it is best for children to be raised in a commune.”

Again, your child-rearing radar is not just off, it is down, not working. Sorry if this seems personal, it is not meant to be. But from what I have learned about kids, being raised by a group of people would thoroughly confuse them.

“And lastly, prove it with studies showing that two parents, being male and female, is UNIVERSALLY better than two parents at all.”

Do you know any family-oriented therapists? Ask them what a child needs to grow up healthy and balanced, or just ask someone you trust (who hopefully has experience with kids and common sense) what they think. I don’t need to site a “study” because EVERY nuclear family or those who know a nuclear family understand this already without picking up a book or “Googling”.

“Families used to have grandparents live in with their children and grandchildren. That makes at least 4, if not 6 parents.”

Been here too. Whenever grandparents are involved, it is in the best interest of the child that the authority of the mother and father be respected. Otherwise, kids will not respect the authority of their parents absolutely as children or adults. That later translates into more general issues rejecting authority which has the potential to result in job loss (no respect for boss) or worse, jail (no respect for official authority). So, we are back to 2 parents again.

I realize that you mean well, and give you the benefit of the doubt without knowing you that you have a sincere desire for what is best for children. That said, you are way off here and what you believe, if applied to society as a whole, would mean disaster. A welfare state, prisons packed to the rafters, VERY busy therapists and psychiatrists…

Frankly, I think it is best for children to be raised in a commune. But seeing as this is an ideal that probably won’t be reached in North America for at least a couple generations, I can’t advocate for it in the present time. But in ideal terms it seems better than having two parents only, yes.

“Your assumption that two males could have feminine qualities is exactly backwards.”

It’s feminine qualities, not female qualities. Anyone can have feminine or masculine qualities. Or maybe you think butch women (ie masculine women) are not women?

And lastly, prove it with studies showing that two parents, being male and female, is UNIVERSALLY better than two parents at all. Cause there’s no studies on that. Studies on gay parents tend to say they raise children that are just as healthy psychologically and physically as children from heterosexual households.

Having more than two parents is ideal in a way, cause you get more than two points of view. One parent is less ideal, and being raised with no parental figure (orphanage, foster parents who never become permanent) is considered usually worse. Families used to have grandparents live in with their children and grandchildren. That makes at least 4, if not 6 parents.

Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Are men and women inherently different, Schala? If so, they would absolutely be different as parents.

Your assumption that two males could have feminine qualities is exactly backwards. Two males would obviously double the male influence on the child and eliminate the female influence. A gay man is not female and can not be a mother. To suggest otherwise is fantasy. If such a person assumes he can, it makes me question his fitness in knowing a child’s needs and wonder what hostility he has toward women that he would deny the unique parenting skill a woman would provide. Ditto for two women.

They don’t absolutely need living examples at home.
Not if you devalue the opposite sex and their contribution to parenting, beyond conception.

Best to have two OR MORE parents? I see you apply your rationale consistently.

This is my last post on the subject, any further posts are not by me.

So single mothers and single fathers who had a child the ‘biological way’ should forfeit their parental rights to that child or those children, since they can’t provide an ‘ideal’ environment for them. The state should reclaim them in 100% of cases and have them as orphans, right? Cause that’s what you just said.

“Is it best, in general, for a child to have a mother and a father? Yes or no?”

It is best to have two, or more parents. Since one parent would arguably have to juggle the nurture and the time at work, and unless they’re rich and can live off their huge piles of money somewhere, they can’t be with their children reasonably enough.

What’s wrong with having two male or two female parents? Don’t tell me about teaching the masculine and the feminine, cause well, society teaches it a lot by itself, so that children figure it out early enough, what they like and how they identify. They don’t absolutely need living examples at home.

And also that’s assuming two males couldn’t have feminine qualities and that two females couldn’t have masculine qualities – which is bullshit.

“They also should be shunned, and marginalized as much as is possible by society as a whole. They are an abomination that is either cause by defective wiring in the brain, genetically broken, or emotionally damaged.”

Let’s instead shun people who pick nicknames like “A Stoner”, their reasoning is so warped and out of sync with reality that they could be damaging to themselves and others (which qualifies as a mental illness), so yeah, let’s shun the “A Stoner”s of the world, who want to make it back to stone age. /sarcasm

The financial benefit of allowing us to marry is already evident, as the millions continue to roll in for CA and Mass. What you people don’t seem to understand is that the constitution was written to GIVE rights, not take them away. We are a free country, but we still seek to repress those we do not understand.

First it was the “Indians”. Then the slaves. Then the Irish immigrants. Then back to the black people. Then women (still women, really). Now it’s the gays. But somehow, the people you “normal” folks try to keep down, the self same ones who you spit on, mock, FEAR – yes FEAR, has history not shown you that they rise up eventually. They take their own rights – the same rights you enjoy? It’s happening now, folks.

You better find someone else to hate. I hear the deaf are available. Maybe the blind next, hmm? What about people who say “supposebly” instead of “supposedly”? Ooooh, I know . . . online gamblers. SINNERS!! Go get ‘em!

Just live your lives! We, the gays, aren’t out to negate your marriages, recruit your kids, or try in any way to change your lives. We, honestly, BELIEVE ME, don’t really give a flying monkey’s coitus about you or what you do unless we know you personally, and we’d rather you adopted the same philosophy to us. You’re no better, you’re no different, and in fact, I’m willing to bet many of you have repressed homosexual urges in your history. But, let’s save that discussion for another day.