British Same-*** Couples Can Now Legally Adopt Children:

quote:

Originally posted by Merto:
Eventually, if the change is accepted, which it has been by the government who have a major roll in defining social norms, it too becomes the norm.

They don't have much influence over the biological variety, however, thus biological deviance will remain deviant.

EW

With respect TMP I did not ask for a definition of deviant; I asked EW for a clearer definition of his own phrase "too deviant".

It is however pertient to note that, as per the Wilkipedia definition, the notion of deviance is a product of social norms. Moral codes and social conventions are of course useful but also have the irritating habit of legitimising bigotry and xenophobia.

I would assert that it is only by questioning the logic and reasoning behind our actions (individual and social) that we have progressed.

Just look back to social norms of the 1950's to see the distance we have travelled.

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
It is however pertient to note that, as per the Wilkipedia definition, the notion of deviance is a product of social norms.

I agree. Hence my preference for the benchmark of biological norm.

EW

EW

But biological norms are wildly out of sync with anything but hunter-gatherer humans.

What's biologically 'normal' about driving a car, getting a haircut or wearing clothes?

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
What's biologically 'normal' about driving a car, getting a haircut or wearing clothes?

None of those things really violate biological principles; curing cancer does, to some extent, and I wouldn't argue we stopped doing that!

When it comes to rasing kids, however, one must endeavour to protect them from certain social and/or biological deviations lest they get mixed up during their formative years. They might benefit from a little conformity just while they're young; as adults they'll be subjected to all manner of perversions, just like the rest of us.

Perhaps best to start in the right place?

EW

TMP

Yes I agree.

Of course the ability to do something does not by default justify it. Similarly though to continue actions that denigrate and or subjugate others out of a fear of change or even a laziness is contemptible.

Communication, reasoned debate, logic and tolerance are the tools mankind has yet to perfect!

But I'm optimistic!

Doug

We live with biological deviations on a daily basis. The process of evolution provides one form and others (quite possibly the same thing but on a different time scale) are the multitude of exceptions to natures "rules"....

The platypus, exception to the rule of being a mammal or just another one of natures creatures which doesnt happen to fit fully into one of the categories we have devised.... ?

Norm and exception or deviation are simply labels given to aid categorisation.
Im not suggesting we are evolving into hermaphrodites or waterborne creatures, merely trying to illustrate that whilst you may consider biological deviation to be separate from social deviation, for the purposes of this debate it really isnt. Its just another label.

Nature produces what nature produces, with or without our help or consent and doesnt care if we have a category for it. That doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it.

Who knows mother natures long term plans Tarquin

There are creatures in nature that produce offspring and then have an entirely different species nurture them. Adaptation, evolution, deviation or clever?

Dont ask me to list them please, I know there is a bird that lays its eggs in anothers nest and I have seen a dog suckle a cat. Hows that for a "deviated" adoption....

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
Phil

If I read you right then I too agree stability is of supreme value.

Are you saying that you think marriage functions to augment such stability? If so, there is surely a counter argument that parents who stay together (when they are unhappy and should part company) are actually 'pressured' to do so rather than 'fail' at marriage. This would not be a good environment for a child.

Apologies if I read you wrong.

Doug

I agree,

I think I mentioned a "loving 'conventional' marriage", ie not a stale loveless marriage - which could well be worse. Such tension is very unsettling for children, who are extremely perceptive to mood.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Merto:
That doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it.

True, but we aren't really discussing right and wrong; the question is if certain 'novel' scenarios represent sound means of raising children in a healthy and auspicious way.

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by Merto:
That doesnt mean there is anything wrong with it.

True, but we aren't really discussing right and wrong; the question is if certain 'novel' scenarios represent sound means of raising children in a healthy and auspicious way.

My point is that the ´novel´scenarios (assuming you mean the parenting and not my animal examples!) do not necerssarily represent biological deviation. This, as I understand, is a major consideration in your rejection of these scenarios and your assertion therefore that to engage in one of these scenarios is wrong

Tarquin, I concede, well and truly trumped!

Funny how a single word can trigger offence, even when its technical definition is correct. I have learned here that EW can sometimes say things that make me sit up, but I don't think it's anything other than straight talking and not intended as offensive. Sorry EW, but you must have noticed?
Personally, I believe that as it is common that couples both straight and gay do not stay together into old age, gay marriage is a pretty significant indication to gay couples that will last and provide a stable home for a child more than anything else I can think of. Either way, it is more important in adoption to associate the child to a single parent rather than a couple, and then the longevity of the relationship becomes irrelevant. This couple business is red herring and is irrelevant to the welfare of the child. The world is full of very successful single parents. Fred and Rosemary West had a pretty strong marriage.

The human race has a very long and very bad track record in the way it handles deviance. If it can be ignored we need not talk about it. If it can't be ignored then we'd better lock them away. (Unless they are rich enough to get away with it)

We haven't discussed real-world variations on the norm.
Take travellers. Are they expertly training their kids to survive in a post-holocaust/catastrophic climate change situation? Or damaging their kid's chances of anything more than a casual, manual labouring job? Or a life of petty crime in order to survive on the edge of "our" society?

In comparison with a traveller's upbringing, a homosexual couple bringing up kids, seems almost tame. But then, the only homosexuals I have recognised as such, were kind, well-adjusted, comfortable and in stable long-term relationships. The latter almost places them at odds with the heterosexual norm. Being "comfortable" still offers distinct advantages over poverty in any social child-raising situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
The human race has a very long and very bad track record in the way it handles deviance. If it can be ignored we need not talk about it. If it can't be ignored then we'd better lock them away. (Unless they are rich enough to get away with it)

Quite. Exactly how Jesus ended up on the cross I think.

Sir Mike Thrust is to obtuse as Tarquin is to....?