Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.
No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody
Not if they have reproductive problems.
Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.
They should get a medal for lowering world population.
I don't know.
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
Ultimately, love alone means absolutely nothing. People can love someone and still hurt them. People can love someone who is hurting them. Obviously love doesn't dictate value, because love doesn't stop some people from doing things that are clearly of negative value.
Love by itself is just a series of chemicals firing off in your brain. So asking me which loves are "better" and therefore of more value is a nonsense question. It's like asking me whether caffeine or sugar is a more fit object of worship based on which one I think gives me a better rush. It's nonsense.
So can a guy love a doll? Yeah, probably, as long as those same series of chemicals fire off. What does that mean? Nothing. Because love alone means nothing.
What matters is whether you have good reason to respect them, based on what they do and how they show their love, and how that compels you, and whether or not you're good enough to give it back. This is what gives love depth, motion, and purpose. It's what takes it from some nonsensical, meaningless feeling, into an actual relationship that can be positive, and in which people (and yes, animals as well sometimes) can do amazing things.
Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.
And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind, including parental. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-17-14 at 04:16 AM.
It's more likely that the negative effects of climate change, pollution, topsoil erosion and water scarcity, are going to reduce the food supply and lead to a population bottleneck, with a significant dieoff of human population. Everyone who has kids and is paying attention to these issues, has to wonder what kind of world they've brought their children in to!
Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
Stephen J. Gould
"Originally Posted by Ocean007:
NONSENSE. Each individual, woman or man, is capable of deciding for herself or himself what makes up a 'family.' Couples without children may not make sense to you, which is fine. The bolded statement is a ridiculous assertion, which I certainly don't take seriously."
Where is the so-called "swear" word in this post? Please point it out for me.
In any case, it isn't for you to decide who "should" or "should not" participate in the process of voting. Whether childless or childfree, couples without kids have the same right to vote as you do.
God has nothing to do with this, nor sharing insurance.
I cannot voice my true thoughts for people who think this way, all you'd see is *. NO ONE is inferior to another person, no matter if they have kids or not, by choice or not.
Building block or stumbling block.... choose.