Kids or No Kids?

[BlackBaron2]

Purpose is an abstract concept, Stardusk. Spreading our genes is a function, but not our sole purpose for existence. The meaning of life, as it were, refers to what an individual sees as hir own purpose for existing, be it helping others, creating beautiful works of art, or even just having a life of quiet domesticity with 5+ children, just as examples. Each person has hir own hopes and dreams, which don't always involve having children.

 

Also, I hate to say it, but being able to produce a child naturally is no accomplishment. Almost any cisgender male/female pairing, without protection, can result in a baby. This means that even people who can't actually care for a child properly can still produce one. Being able to turn that baby into a competent adult without said baby developing behavioural issues or neuroses in the <20 years you have before ze becomes a legal adult, however, is definitely something to be proud of!

[SpellAndShield]

Purpose is an abstract concept, Stardusk. Spreading our genes is a function, but not our sole purpose for existence. The meaning of life, as it were, refers to what an individual sees as hir own purpose for existing, be it helping others, creating beautiful works of art, or even just having a life of quiet domesticity with 5+ children, just as examples. Each person has hir own hopes and dreams, which don't always involve having children.

 

Also, I hate to say it, but being able to produce a child naturally is no accomplishment. Almost any cisgender male/female pairing, without protection, can result in a baby. This means that even people who can't actually care for a child properly can still produce one. Being able to turn that baby into a competent adult without said baby developing behavioural issues or neuroses in the <20 years you have before ze becomes a legal adult, however, is definitely something to be proud of!

 

Of course reproduction is no aacomplishment! Evolution merely dictates that our genes get spread out there, how it happens and what happens to them is less relevant. I agree that purpose is abstract, i.e. contrived. Anyone can have any purpose because it is not an objective question.

[BlackBaron2]

Then please don't say things like "our purpose is to reproduce". You did use the word "purpose" in that context, and you're being very disingenuous here.

 

Also, please don't say that homosexual, asexual and transgender people don't matter or have no purpose just because they can't have babies, and don't make unsubstantiated generalizations. Bring up some statistics from a scientific page rather than Susan Walsh's blog, a place that pushes evolutionary psychology (woman-bashing with a fancy name) or a trashy magazine, then I'll see if I believe you. You've also said some homophobic things--not all gay men act hyper-masculine or are "camp"/feminine, and not all of us are promiscuous (even though that doesn't make us bad), but we might act like that because society says we're not allowed to get married because we can't produce babies. This baby-obsession nonsense is a motivator for misogyny, transphobia and homophobia. If you don't understand that, have a look at what transphobes, men who write blogs about hating women, and homophobes use an argument. Reproduction never fails to show up in an argument about bashing women ("they're all manipulative psychos who want to trap men into breeding!"), trans* people ("Transsexual women are sterile and therefore not real women!") and homosexuals ("Two men can't have a baby, therefore they're being unnatural and sick!").

[SpellAndShield]

Then please don't say things like "our purpose is to reproduce". You did use the word "purpose" in that context, and you're being very disingenuous here.

 

Also, please don't say that homosexual, asexual and transgender people don't matter or have no purpose just because they can't have babies, and don't make unsubstantiated generalizations. Bring up some statistics from a scientific page rather than Susan Walsh's blog, a place that pushes evolutionary psychology (woman-bashing with a fancy name) or a trashy magazine, then I'll see if I believe you. You've also said some homophobic things--not all gay men act hyper-masculine or are "camp"/feminine, and not all of us are promiscuous (even though that doesn't make us bad), but we might act like that because society says we're not allowed to get married because we can't produce babies. This baby-obsession nonsense is a motivator for misogyny, transphobia and homophobia. If you don't understand that, have a look at what transphobes, men who write blogs about hating women, and homophobes use an argument. Reproduction never fails to show up in an argument about bashing women ("they're all manipulative psychos who want to trap men into breeding!"), trans* people ("Transsexual women are sterile and therefore not real women!") and homosexuals ("Two men can't have a baby, therefore they're being unnatural and sick!").

 

 

Do I have to repeat myself? I said biological purpose. BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE. The reason I did not qualify it originally with the adjective is because purpose beyond biology is an invented question that can have any answer. You are reading everything I write with emotion, not reason. I said NOTHING homophobic and have never spoken of homosexuality as being unnatural. It is indeed very natural as I said, we just do not yet understand its purpose within human biology yet. I spoke of tendencies, not of all people. Most of my gay friends decidedly do NOT belong to those in the majority who exhibit such behaviour and find it lamentable. You are the only one here bringing up woman bashing. I have no idea where you are getting that from to be honest.

[draconix]

The idea of a biological "purpose" is every bit as contrived as the question of a meaning of life. Purpose implies design, which I don't subscribe to in the first place, but that's something that I'll not be getting into. I'll leave things simple and state that Occam's Razor indicates that the solution that requires the fewest amount of new assumptions is usually the correct one. Assuming that we have a biological "purpose" would be a new assumption for me to make.

 

Reproduction is the means that has allowed life to perpetuate, but does not imply purpose.

[SpellAndShield]

The idea of a biological "purpose" is every bit as contrived as the question of a meaning of life. Purpose implies design, which I don't subscribe to in the first place, but that's something that I'll not be getting into. I'll leave things simple and state that Occam's Razor indicates that the solution that requires the fewest amount of new assumptions is usually the correct one. Assuming that we have a biological "purpose" would be a new assumption for me to make.

 

Reproduction is the means that has allowed life to perpetuate, but does not imply purpose.

 

I would agree. We could simply call it, what we as a species do. I will concede that purpose is very contrived and thus not necessary.

[BlackBaron2]

Then please don't say things like "our purpose is to reproduce". You did use the word "purpose" in that context, and you're being very disingenuous here.

 

Also, please don't say that homosexual, asexual and transgender people don't matter or have no purpose just because they can't have babies, and don't make unsubstantiated generalizations. Bring up some statistics from a scientific page rather than Susan Walsh's blog, a place that pushes evolutionary psychology (woman-bashing with a fancy name) or a trashy magazine, then I'll see if I believe you. You've also said some homophobic things--not all gay men act hyper-masculine or are "camp"/feminine, and not all of us are promiscuous (even though that doesn't make us bad), but we might act like that because society says we're not allowed to get married because we can't produce babies. This baby-obsession nonsense is a motivator for misogyny, transphobia and homophobia. If you don't understand that, have a look at what transphobes, men who write blogs about hating women, and homophobes use an argument. Reproduction never fails to show up in an argument about bashing women ("they're all manipulative psychos who want to trap men into breeding!"), trans* people ("Transsexual women are sterile and therefore not real women!") and homosexuals ("Two men can't have a baby, therefore they're being unnatural and sick!").

 

 

Do I have to repeat myself? I said biological purpose. BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE. The reason I did not qualify it originally with the adjective is because purpose beyond biology is an invented question that can have any answer. You are reading everything I write with emotion, not reason. I said NOTHING homophobic and have never spoken of homosexuality as being unnatural. It is indeed very natural as I said, we just do not yet understand its purpose within human biology yet. I spoke of tendencies, not of all people. Most of my gay friends decidedly do NOT belong to those in the majority who exhibit such behaviour and find it lamentable. You are the only one here bringing up woman bashing. I have no idea where you are getting that from to be honest.

 

 

I'm getting it from other people who believe in evolutionary psychology--this idea of woman-bashing that is. You're also saying the "majority" of gay men engage in hypergamy and hyper-masculine behaviour, which is an unproven assertion meant to cast doubt on whether or not we should be tolerated by heterosexuals. If we were all slaves to our instincts, like cats, dogs, bears and insects, then life would be very different, too. We are capable of choosing not to breed. Choosing not to breed does not make somebody a bad person or broken, and that was my original point which you've completely forgotten about.

[ginnyfizz]

Quite so, BB2. I'd like to see him actually come out and say that he believes that you can be a valid person without choosing to/being able to breed, but I don't think that's what he does believe. He appears to really think that people like us are abnormal freaks. Sadly, this thread has drawn out a lot of prejudices - even the old "Northerners are skiving chavs" one.

[Aurielius]

Just idle curiosity but how did a thread about whether or not to have little ones become about the social validity of being gay?

[BlackBaron2]

I mentioned the obsession with breeding as being a motivating factor in prejudice, because it is--every time there's an argument about people not being heterosexual or cisgender, somebody who is prejudiced will say "Being homosexual/transgender is bad because if you are then you can't have a baby."