Love and responsibility for one another's well being transcends blood relations and direct family ties

That's true, says science. We are altruistic beings, helping others so that we in turn are helped, thus increasing out chance our survival. We help the young because through evolution we are D'aww (real science word) by their round faces and other baby features. Same reason we love other baby animals.

That's true, says science. We are altruistic beings, helping others so that we in turn are helped, thus increasing out chance our survival. We help the young because through evolution we are D'aww (real science word) by their round faces and other baby features. Same reason we love other baby animals.

Thanks for that tidbit of 100% undeniable proven scientific fact that has nothing to do with the topic.

Maybe one of these days if you keep it up I too will believe we are nothing more than animals that live in a purposeless world where nothing but self satisfaction exists.

I'm just going to leave with the comment that you can't fight for one thing without pulling other things into the argument, that is part of debate, and unless you can address all sides you will get pulled down by the opposing opinion.

All in all, I've seen what needs seeing, I've heard what needs hearing. We fundamentally see the world differently, our thought processes probably vary considerably as well, and it appears you used the discussion more as a way to try to harden your own ideology by seeing what cracks we could dent in it than to see what you could learn from us.

So, toodles for now, until next time, this is Team Rocket blasting off again. *twinkle*

I believe "best friend" is already as tight as a bond with another person can get

Well...sorry but it's not the closest bond. If you need to understand the difference between best friends and those who are so intimate that they have sex and want to be with each other forever, I recommend looking at any married couple who's lasted longer than 10 years (10 is arbitrary).

See, the thing is, what you believe isn't always reality.

Yes, defending my ideology. When I find inconsistencies in my ideology or a weakness in it's premise as a result of your thoughts and arguments, then I will see what I can do to alter it to make sense. I did not write this post to absorb all your reactions; I find that to be an absolutely ridiculous thing for anyone to do lol

Yeah, people can get annoying when they do that, right? (This is not an attack, I'm legitimately agreeing with you).

I am in no way implying that a child will be better off simply because parents have this debt to pay.

Let me quote you here

I dont think people who adopt are incapable of loving the child as much as a woman who has given birth...as they have a great debt to pay.

Showing love helps a child. I don't need to tell you how. If a person is incapable of loving a child (as much as a women) then they aren't as fit to raise them, thus the child will be better off with the straight parents.

At least be consistent.

Thanks for that tidbit of 100% undeniable proven scientific fact that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Maybe one of these days if you keep it up I too will believe we are nothing more than animals that live in a purposeless world where nothing but self satisfaction exists.

Haha, I had to just poke my head back in, bringing that old debate up again.

We are animals, plain and simple, dirty, silly animals who happened to have their brains get too big for their own good.

Intrinsic purpose is a farce, its what you apply to life, but oh well, that is a debate from long ago, where similar events occurred.

Farewell again.

Thanks for that tidbit of 100% undeniable proven scientific fact that has nothing to do with the topic.

I'm just giving his argument credibility through evidence.

purposeless world

The world has no intrinsic purpose. Purpose is what we give to it.

Well...sorry but it's not the closest bond. If you need to understand the difference between best friends and those who are so intimate that they have sex and want to be with each other forever, I recommend looking at any married couple who's lasted longer than 10 years (10 is arbitrary).

See, the thing is, what you believe isn't always reality.

Best friends don't want to be best friends forever? If there is some defining difference here I can't see it, please tell me what it is

Let me quote you here

 

Showing love helps a child. I don't need to tell you how. If a person is incapable of loving a child (as much as a women) then they aren't as fit to raise them, thus the child will be better off with the straight parents.

 

At least be consistent.

I don't see where I'm being inconsistent and I'm pretty sure you're seeing something in that arguement that isn't there. What I'm saying is that even though birth parents have a debt to pay to the child and may love them as much as anyone could love a child, does not mean the parents necessarily have the skill or knowledge for the child to really be better off than a child raised by someone who adopted them

Best friends don't want to be best friends forever? If there is some defining difference here I can't see it, please tell me what it is

Best friends don't want to have sex with one another and best friends don't want to live with each other forever.

I don't see where I'm being inconsistent and I'm pretty sure you're seeing something in that arguement that isn't there. What I'm saying is that even though birth parents have a debt to pay to the child and may love them as much as anyone could love a child, does not mean the parents necessarily have the skill or knowledge for the child to really be better off than a child raised by someone who adopted them

I'll spell it out. Love for a child is a vital part that an adult must have to raise said child. If a mother loves. You said people who adopt kids as much as the women who gave birth to said child. Thus the adopter (who is either straight or gay) loves the child less, and therefore is less qualified to adopt children. No you're saying that being a parent does automatically make you a great parent (which I agree). You're inconsistent. Pick one ideology. And go with it.

Best friends don't want to have sex with one another and best friends don't want to live with each other forever.

Again... So it comes down to simply the act of sex that makes one relationship stronger than another. I don't really want to keep arguing about this around in a circle. If you think sex is that important to a relationship then fine.

"best friends don't want to live with each other forever". Not sure of the significance of living together in the same house... But I would think best friends would want to either live together or close in a place where they have enough room for themselves. Just because people aren't sharing a roof over their heads doesn't really mean anything to me

I'll spell it out. Love for a child is a vital part that an adult must have to raise said child. If a mother loves. You said people who adopt kids as much as the women who gave birth to said child. Thus the adopter (who is either straight or gay) loves the child less, and therefore is less qualified to adopt children. No you're saying that being a parent does automatically make you a great parent (which I agree). You're inconsistent. Pick one ideology. And go with it.

I guess it's the way I write stuff but I'm not saying one loves the child more than another

So it comes down to simply the act of sex that makes one relationship stronger than another

It's not the sex, but the reasons behind the sex. The fact that you trust someone to see your imperfections, unfiltered.

Not sure of the significance of living together in the same house

If you want to live together forever, you're crazy. There's no way that can last, lest you love someone. It's about that commitment.

I guess it's the way I write stuff but I'm not saying one loves the child more than another

It's not how you wrote it. The two statements say two different things. I'm just calling you out on it.

It's not the sex, but the reasons behind the sex. The fact that you trust someone to see your imperfections, unfiltered.

To see that you lust and have genitals? Haha, It's funny how the world makes such a big deal about finding out other people are human. Should we kill a guy in front of each other as well to show more of our imperfections? Or is there something I misunderstand here?

It's not how you wrote it. The two statements say two different things. I'm just calling you out on it.

No you either just don't understand what I'm saying or aren't proficient enough to explain [to me] exactly what you're calling me out on...

1) Sex is a big deal for some people. I carries significance.

2) Okay, tell me how these statements are similar

• I dont think people who adopt are incapable of loving the child as much as a woman who has given birth.
  
• What I'm saying is that even though birth parents have a debt to pay to the child and may love them as much as anyone could love a child.
  

One is saying that mothers love their kid more than those who adopt said kid.

One is saying that everyone can love that kid equally.

1) Sex is a big deal for some people. I carries significance.

 

2) Okay, tell me how these statements are similar

• I dont think people who adopt are incapable of loving the child as much as a woman who has given birth.
  
• What I'm saying is that even though birth parents have a debt to pay to the child and may love them as much as anyone could love a child.
  

One is saying that mothers love their kid more than those who adopt said kid.

One is saying that everyone can love that kid equally.

I think the double negative got you lol. The first one is saying I don't think people who adopt are incapable - meaning I do think they are capable of loving their child as much as a woman who gives birth.

Ooops. The double negative did get me. Thanks for that, soul Brother. This is why teachers hate double negatives.

Doesn't matter if there is a double negative, still claiming homosexual couples (disregarding children at all) can't be as good, and that everyone should just be friends. OP wants a world similar to Brave New World (nixing some aspects) where we all just remain friends and we don't actually need sex anymore.

Doesn't matter if there is a double negative, still claiming homosexual couples (disregarding children at all) can't be as good, and that everyone should just be friends. OP wants a world similar to Brave New World (nixing some aspects) where we all just remain friends and we don't actually need sex anymore.

At this point I'm not sure if you're just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying

 

At this point I'm not sure if you're just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying

Tell me what in what I said is wrong, you claim the bond between people can't be as strong unless they physically have a child (you explicitly claimed this, so DO NOT claim again that I am misunderstanding you), and you've openly said that people should only remain friends, they shouldn't need to go on to any further level (you did indeed state this), and you claim that sex for anything but having children is wrong in your mind.

All three of those things are what I sated in what you just qouted, I'm going off of what you have directly said, you cannot tell me I am misinterpreting it since you have made the point of saying the same thing quite a few times.

At this point, I'm not sure if you are just deliberately assuming everything we say is a misunderstanding of your words.

Tell me what in what I said is wrong, you claim the bond between people can't be as strong unless they physically have a child (you explicitly claimed this, so DO NOT claim again that I am misunderstanding you), and you've openly said that people should only remain friends, they shouldn't need to go on to any further level (you did indeed state this), and you claim that sex for anything but having children is wrong in your mind.

 

All three of those things are what I sated in what you just qouted, I'm going off of what you have directly said, you cannot tell me I am misinterpreting it since you have made the point of saying the same thing quite a few times.

 

At this point, I'm not sure if you are just deliberately assuming everything we say is a misunderstanding of your words.

You're assuming things. I have never said I want some kind of world where we don't need sex. That is a reality of our world and not one that I care to change.

I have also said that the bond between a couple that have had a child is still really just "best friends", the only reason I put it on a different level is because they both bare the responsibility to the child they've created. Take what you want from this. I'm not putting them on a level higher than anyone else who considers themselves best friends because I think their personal relationship is somehow better - it is because they share that physical similarity.

I don't remember the context but I do think people should remain friends - because I don't think there is anything else, save the relationship of mother/father/daughter/son. I believe the relationship between parents is more of something that solidifies that friendship than something that somehow puts it beyond any other relationship

Then what was the whole point of saying anything at all if really all you mean by any of this is that some parents are better friends than others?