Childrearing - Family or Community

[Pongui]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
How this trait is passed to future generations is beyond my comprehension... according to my model, homosexuality should die out within a generation as they would be unable to naturally reproduce.

Remember that half the genes any one person carries are masked (and totally dormant) by the dominant set of genes, whatever that sorts out to at conception. All those dormant genes have a chance of passing to offspring; and may remain dormant or may resurface. Some genes skip every other generation, or manifest only when paired with others, or otherwise play peekaboo by random or obscure cause. If there is a "homosexual gene" you can bet at least as many heterosexuals carry it dormantly. Maybe we all carry it.

Sterile worker bees don't die out. They occur and reoccur by the magic of genetics. Their existence shows how genetic variation within a cooperative extended family can benefit the family as a whole. I think humans have been around long enough as "cooperative extended families" that genetic predispositions within the clan might be useful. Maybe primitive man survived better when not all members of the tribe were "breeders". I can imagine how that might come in handy.

My personal observation is that if one has uncles or aunts, there's a very good chance one of them will not have children. This is can be very useful to the family as a whole. These unburdened adults often function as temporary caregivers to various family members, as needed. They mind your kid when you're sick, they help grandpa take a bath, they spoil the twins. Why not make it genetic?

I wouldn't call a gene which accomplishes this a "defect".

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Gothmog
I don't think anything will work equally well, even provided love, financial security, and community support. As I said in my post I think it takes a family, that is two people who love each other (could be more in theory but the social dynamics are basically impossible) and who love the child in question. I don't think kids benefit from communal rearing, they need individual care of the kind only a parent can give. They need someone to feel selfish about and for them.

Well said.

Originally posted by Gothmog
One parent can do it too, they have the love part no question. But it is better with two for the reasons I state in my post above. Also, I have known many people raised by one parent and that relationship can get a little too dependent (the parent on the kid).

Both parents can work and raise a child, but I think that is only marginally better than a one-parent household (until the kids go to school full time, then both can work without any compromise).

I know I am somewhat conservative in that way, I really think one of the parents should be at home with the kids until they go to school. It isn’t always possible, but IMO any reasonable sacrifice should be made.

I'm glad you used the word conseervative, because if I brought it up people might take issue.

Originally posted by Gothmog
So what do you think onejayhawk? Is it better for a kid to be raised by a monogamous committed loving homosexual couple (say by artificial insemination) where one stays home with the kids, or is it better for a kid to be raised by a heterosexual couple where both parents go back to work just a few weeks after birth?

Also, I don’t want to push here – just don’t answer if you don’t feel comfortable – but could you elaborate on this a bit “my personal opposition to gay marriage is based on the concept that marriage is not primarily for the couple”, why should it be more for the couple in a homosexual marriage?

I think the question was deliberately designed to have no one correct answer. In fact I used allI know about polling to construct such a question, and my degree is statistics.

What I wanted to find out was whether anyone seriously believed that the concept of a central collective was preferable to the polyglot of piecemeal approaches that has an important percentage of children falling through the holes in the net. So far that is a resounding "No."

If you ask my personal preference I would have to say #1, but with a list of reservations. Every parent and every child is an individual. The possibility that the two mismatch badly is very substantial and the trauma is potentially deadly, not just for the child, or the parent in some cases, but for society at large. If there is one thing that is poorly understood in our society, IMO this is it.

In a perfect world you would want elements of 1 through three, but in a perfect world, the question never comes up.

J

PS Nice to find an area we agree across the board on.

 

[CurtSibling]

I can see where Hawk's chain of thought is heading...

 

[John-LP]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
I do believe homosexuality is a genetic defect which affects one's sexual preference.

That's pretty arrogant.

 

[Pongui]

Maybe not arrogant. He said it with the assumption that homosexuality - if genetic - defeats its own reproductive prospects. If it worked that way he'd be right to call it a defect.

 

[HuckFinn]

Exactly what Sean said... if it was a "flip" of a sexual preference gene that was detrimental to the individual, then definitely it's a defect because it makes our sex drive work the way it shouldn't.

Besides, there's nothing arrogant about calling a malfunctioning gene what it is (still working with my assumption)... I get the creeps out of people who are insulted at the merest hint of a suggestion of them having a genetic anomaly. It makes me feel as if we live in a world where, despite all PC talk, "genetic impurity" still makes a person fair game... the LAST thing people want is to be told their DNA isn't as perfect as they'd like to think. Still, the average individual unknowingly carries several potentially illness-causing genes which just simply don't manifest...

Even if a gay person did have a genetic defect in their "sexual preference gene", it must not affect this person's worth or rights. Homosexuals are ok to pursue their relationships no matter what the underlying cause.

I feel very strongly about this, simply because if this was a Fascist society which wanted to eliminate "undesirable genetic defectives", I'd personally be among the first to get a gunshot through the head... not a prospect I enjoy.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I can see where Hawk's chain of thought is heading...

Pray enlighten us, because I think you have no clue.

J