A Rant.

[Elder Iptuous]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?

If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...

How very nice that you can afford such luxuries.  However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.

so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,

Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.

Has nothing to do with my statement.  I don't mean the ideal for emotional fulfilment, or anything aside from the ideal situation to raise a child.

[Elder Iptuous]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple,

Yeah, that 50%+ divorce rate is ideal, all right.

Has nothing to do with my statement.  I don't mean the ideal for emotional fulfilment, or anything aside from the ideal situation to raise a child.

Apart from that the failings of any number of people in living up to the expectations and obligations of any given arrangement does not change the value of the arrangement itself...

[Freeky]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

[NotPublished]

Love from the parents is the best thing anyone could ever grow up with. I think its being analysed too scientifically.

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

[Nast]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.

Nope, and for a lot of other organisms it would not be the ideal environment.  For us it is. I am not saying it is something that applies to all mammals, or even all simians.  Just that it applies to us, throughout recorded history and before that as far as we can tell from the evidence.

[Nast]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

Could you elaborate on those biological reasons? Because hardly every organism is reared by two separate sex parents.

Nope, and for a lot of other organisms it would not be the ideal environment.  For us it is. I am not saying it is something that applies to all mammals, or even all simians.  Just that it applies to us, throughout recorded history and before that as far as we can tell from the evidence.

And, um, what evidence would that be?

[Freeky]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

Yes, I am a single mom. Yes it would be nice to have someone else to help me with Monkey. But that doesn't mean that I want a man (because I don't in a REALLY BIG WAY), and I definitely don't want to get back together with my ex. So there goes biological right out the window.

To top off my argument against yours, that biological is ideal (which I interpret as 'best'), I am adopted. I never knew my biological parents, and they specifically told the adoption agency that they didn't want any further contact. Now, I would be the first to admit that I don't get on with my parents. And also that I ended up a little dysfunctional. But that has nothing to do with my parents being non-biological, I just don't like them. I don't see how my sharing DNA with them would have changed those matters.

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

I'd agree with the bolded statement, except that we evolved from monkeys, and then for most of 'civilized' history women had no rights, so even if they wanted to leave and take the kids, they couldn't.

IMO the idea of two straight parents raising kids being the ''ideal'' situation is total bull. It offends me, even. I think that as long as there is any number of loving individuals caring for a child in a wholesome environment, THAT is the ideal situation.

That's why I think it is vital to separate Ideal from best possible.  You are a single mother (at least as far as I can tell from what you have posted here)  can you say that things would not be more ideal for Monkey if you had another human being in your life to help take on the responsibilities of caring for him?  Now it might not be, could be worse in fact, if that person brought troubles of one sort or another with him, if he were abusive, or consumed more family resources than he provided, or any number of other problems. But given a generic human being (you know, the sort that only exists in an ideal world) it would be more ideal. I am not saying that a mixed sex couple is always the best situation, loving individuals in a wholesome environment of any number and gender are a threshold that can be accomplished in most situations and is a good target to aim for.  That doesn't change the fact that there are biological reasons why the ideal is a mother, a father, both of whom are biologically related to the child, and an extended family who are involved and assist the parents in raising the child.  That's been the norm for longer than we have been human beings and we are evolved to thrive most in that situation.

Yes, I am a single mom. Yes it would be nice to have someone else to help me with Monkey. But that doesn't mean that I want a man (because I don't in a REALLY BIG WAY), and I definitely don't want to get back together with my ex. So there goes biological right out the window.

To top off my argument against yours, that biological is ideal (which I interpret as 'best'), I am adopted. I never knew my biological parents, and they specifically told the adoption agency that they didn't want any further contact. Now, I would be the first to admit that I don't get on with my parents. And also that I ended up a little dysfunctional. But that has nothing to do with my parents being non-biological, I just don't like them. I don't see how my sharing DNA with them would have changed those matters.

As I said and will keep saying there are other factors which are often more important.  I think Monkey is better off with just you than he would have been if you had stayed with your ex, and I'm not saying that you getting involved with a new guy would be a good thing.  In your case he's in the best possible situation, that's not the same as the ideal situation, which would have been a biological mother and father who are perfectly compatible and also an extended family who can support them in parenting.

In your case, again, it was the best possible situation, which is not the same as the ideal situation.  I'd say the fact you don't get along with your parents probably is related to the fact that you are not biologically related to them,  not the whole reason, there are plenty of adopted people who get along fine with their parents, but a contributing factor.  There's no way to say how sharing DNA would have changed things, but it would have meant more similarity between you and them.  We don't understand all the ways that genetics effect personality but we do know that it does to some degree.  Not always in direct ways either, for instance tall people are going to have certain personality traits appear with more likelihood because their environment is different because they are tall, even if there is no genetic component to those personality traits they are still going to show up in a way that is tied to the DNA for being tall.

[NotPublished]

Ideal to who?

People? You? Me?

What is the ideal situation?

I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?

[BabylonHoruv]

Ideal to who?

People? You? Me?

What is the ideal situation?

I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?

Ideal to the generic child. (another one of those things that doesn't really exist)

[Kai]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of Austrailopithecus afarensis or even Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.