Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

This problem's bugged me on and off so I wanna run past you guys before I'm 30 and panicking. 

 

I'm gay and I want to have children some day.  Lots of them preferably, all raised peacefully.  The problems I foresee are lack of female influence, conflict in who's child should be given birth to, and if we both have a child the problem of favoritism by genes (racism kinda). 

 

1. Female influence.

 

A stable nuclear family is crucial to the healthy development of children.  Both fathers and mothers bring characteristics that acclimatize kids to the sexes and help balance each other out.  Also women have boobs which helps with breastfeeding and IQ.

(I think breastfeeding boosts IQ.  Don't know if that's true.) 

 

2.  Who has the kid.

 

Adoption is out of the question.  Has to be my genes and has to start from square one.  If I decided to have one kid with my partner, conflict may arise with who's sperm gets into the egg.  This is a non-issue with a nuclear family. Which leads to...

 

3. Genetic favoritism.

 

If both of us have surrogate children, favoritism by genetic origin could cause conflict.  This I have second thoughts on, because virtue trumps bloodline, and children raised virtuously can't help but mirror that virtue.

 

Has anyone else had thoughts about this situation?  Any gay guys on here had this dilemma?  I don't wanna raise a kid in a naturally dysfunctional environment and I wanna take care of this concern now.  I feel like the answer is right in front of me but I can't see it through my caution.  I feel like I'm operating on broken biology.  :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanna take care of this concern now.

When I was awoken to the drive for self-care, I wanted my bad decisions to be erased immediately. Unfortunately, finding the right answers takes time and applying them takes even longer. Try not to be anxious if you cannot solve this right now.

 

Which I would argue is exactly true (that it cannot be solved right now). I would say this to heterosexuals too. It's not a YOU decision. It's something you and your partner will have to discuss. And that answer might be different from one partner to the next.

 

It reminds me of these women who say they want to have X children. It's a decision you really can't make responsibly until you know WHO they're going to be with and what they want also. Hell, you may come to find that you find your perfect someone and no longer care whether it's your genes or not and would just be thrilled to get to spend your life with them/raise a child with them.

 

Thank you for allowing yourself to be vulnerable by sharing this. I hope I've helped in some way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This problem's bugged me on and off so I wanna run past you guys before I'm 30 and panicking. 

 

I'm gay and I want to have children some day.  Lots of them preferably, all raised peacefully.  The problems I foresee are lack of female influence, conflict in who's child should be given birth to, and if we both have a child the problem of favoritism by genes (racism kinda). 

 

1. Female influence.

 

A stable nuclear family is crucial to the healthy development of children.  Both fathers and mothers bring characteristics that acclimatize kids to the sexes and help balance each other out.  Also women have boobs which helps with breastfeeding and IQ.

(I think breastfeeding boosts IQ.  Don't know if that's true.) 

 

2.  Who has the kid.

 

Adoption is out of the question.  Has to be my genes and has to start from square one.  If I decided to have one kid with my partner, conflict may arise with who's sperm gets into the egg.  This is a non-issue with a nuclear family. Which leads to...

 

3. Genetic favoritism.

 

If both of us have surrogate children, favoritism by genetic origin could cause conflict.  This I have second thoughts on, because virtue trumps bloodline, and children raised virtuously can't help but mirror that virtue.

 

Has anyone else had thoughts about this situation?  Any gay guys on here had this dilemma?  I don't wanna raise a kid in a naturally dysfunctional environment and I wanna take care of this concern now.  I feel like the answer is right in front of me but I can't see it through my caution.  I feel like I'm operating on broken biology.  :confused:

 

Gah, that's a tricky situation.

 

I think what is a bit more important than having a woman around--except for breastfeeding--is having a feminine presence around. I am definitely no expert on this, so take what I say with a grain of salt. What I have heard is that what matters the most is having two parents, versus having a mother and a father. It would be exceptionally wise to have a close female friend for the child, too.

 

The genetics are something that you'll have to resolve with your partner. If you think that you and your partner may favor your genetic offspring more, that might be something to explore in therapy. I would recommend individual therapy as opposed to couples for this.

 

I hate to add the list, but another important factor and concern would be the environment of the womb in which a child is raised in. Obviously, if the mother is doing crack and drinking vast amounts of alcohol during the pregnancy, that will affect the baby. But other, more subtle factors will also influence the baby, such as if the mother is overweight, experiences a great deal of stress during the pregnancy, etc.

 

It does seem like you want what is best for your potential future child(ren). The simple fact is that even the best parents make mistakes. Stef has made mistakes while raising Izzie. What separates a great parent from the rest is that a parent admits to those mistakes and helps correct them. If you want what is best for your future child(ren), I would strongly encourage therapy if you're not already in it. All of our parents make mistakes while we are growing up. Unfortunately, some of those mistakes do not get resolved and have a lasting negative impact on our lives, and when we have children, we repeat those same mistakes, passing off the dysfunction to the next generation. You're already very in tune with the genetics and philosophy, the psychology is just as important.

 

The great thing about being men is that we can have children at any time during our lives. Women are the only ones with biological clocks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is adoption off the table?

I'm not asking for you to tell me, I am asking you to think about it again. I hope to adopt someday.

I saw a woman who's husband died while the children were really young. She was very lucky to have a brother, so for you, a close female relative can be critical. But perhaps even better is if you are two people, loving and warm in a way men usually aren't. I think of myself as protective and supportive and those aren't precisely the same. I can't be a preschool teacher, some guys can, watch them, learn how to be like them part of the time.

I don't know why I have spent so much time thinking about this scenario, but I have. And other than the above, every other model broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 5:05 AM, Jsbrads said:

I'm not asking for you to tell me, I am asking you to think about it again. I hope to adopt someday.

Most likely genes. Considering that you won't be able to sort through the genetic material of the individuals you would be adoption. Also, why wouldn't you want your own genes to proliferate? It's rather anti evolution to pour your own resources into another's child. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ShindouHikaru said:

Most likely genes. Considering that you won't be able to sort through the genetic material of the individuals you would be adoption. Also, why wouldn't you want your own genes to proliferate? It's rather anti evolution to pour your own resources into another's child. 

But, someone has to take care of them. After all, they're up for adoption either because their parents made irresponsible decisions, and therefore, are unfit to care for them or the parents are deceased. Those kind of children can't raise themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, S1988 said:

But, someone has to take care of them. After all, they're up for adoption either because their parents made irresponsible decisions, and therefore, are unfit to care for them or the parents are deceased. Those kind of children can't raise themselves.

90% of the brain's development ends at the age of 5. Children who have been put up for adoption most likely come from very dysfunctional households. Do you have the ability to reverse the course of said dysfunction? Do you have the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done? Can you save every child my dear altruist? Can you raise every unfortunate child? Why would you eliminate your own genetics for the sake of some abstract ideal? Why contribute to the further dysgenics of the species? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShindouHikaru said:

90% of the brain's development ends at the age of 5. Children who have been put up for adoption most likely come from very dysfunctional households. Do you have the ability to reverse the course of said dysfunction? Do you have the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done? Can you save every child my dear altruist? Can you raise every unfortunate child? Why would you eliminate your own genetics for the sake of some abstract ideal? Why contribute to the further dysgenics of the species? 

I don't think I can reverse the damage, but there are others who possibly can. Besides, there are couples who want children but can't because of infertility issues. Who knows? Maybe the said couple can do a better job than a dysfunctional biological parent.

There are times that I wish I was put up for adoption, provided that they didn't mind my quiet, somewhat eccentric behavior. Maybe with an adoptive family, I could've been more comfortable with myself instead feeling like something was wrong thanks to my biological family. However, that doesn't mean that one is totally powerless as a result of a dysfunctional background. Even though I had (and still have) to do it on my own, I've learned to overcome some of my insecurities by being assertive and by learning how to value myself even though I'm not part of the "norm." One of the things I did was to cut off my family, and I became a stronger person as a result. I know that hurting others or myself won't solve my problems. My life's not perfect, but I'll say things are better for me now than they were in the past.

And what about kids who didn't come from a dysfunctional background, like those who had healthy, nurturing parents, but lost them in a tragic accident? 

What's your viewpoint on kids adopted by other family members? Even though they're not their parents, they do share some genes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, S1988 said:

And what about kids who didn't come from a dysfunctional background, like those who had healthy, nurturing parents, but lost them in a tragic accident? 

 

Then these children will most likely be fine. Assuming they don't get royally fucked up by their following caregivers, since 90% of their brain development already occurred, they'll be A-ok. 

 

17 minutes ago, S1988 said:

I don't think I can reverse the damage, but there are others who possibly can. Besides, there are couples who want children but can't because of infertility issues. Who knows? Maybe the said couple can do a better job than a dysfunctional biological parent.

Sure, sure. But are you infertile? An infertile couple would prefer their offspring but have to defer their first choice since it isn't a possibility. 

 

18 minutes ago, S1988 said:

What's your viewpoint on kids adopted by other family members? Even though they're not their parents, they do share some genes. 

I'm not necessarily against adoption. I just dislike your personal motives for it. Almost like you're sacrificing yourself to an altar that will barely make a ripple in the reality that the vast majority of children are abused. Why sacrifice your genetic lineage? Millions of years of evolution went into producing you, why eliminate it simply because children are abused in the world? Who would have a greater positive impact on the world.

 

Person A: peacefully parented from the beginning of their life, having a higher verbal IQ and able to passionately argue in favor of peaceful parenting. 

Person B: Heavily traumatized, will never be on the level of a child who never experienced said trauma, your actions will never be able to reverse said trauma and will have little affect on his/her future development as 90% of their brain development has already occurred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adopting a family member hardly counts. Not that it isn't virtuous, it is, but we used to live in extended families and mutually aided each other in the parenting dept.

Look, you can leave the 5 yr old in an orphanage because you don't think you will have an impact, but for that kid you will. Criminality is far from guaranteed, even IF the experienced trauma means he will operate at -10% IQ from his natural ability, that is still a far cry from a complete failure.

You can adopt a child before your first biological child is born and develop skills as a parent. Practice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2017 at 2:10 AM, Jsbrads said:

You can adopt a child before your first biological child is born and develop skills as a parent. Practice...

I don't think OP wants biological children. 

 

On 11/1/2017 at 2:10 AM, Jsbrads said:

-10% IQ from his natural ability, that is still a far cry from a complete failure.

And when did I suggest that a child who was traumatized is doomed to become a complete failure? Strawman detected. I'm assuming this is all directed towards me btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2.  Who has the kid.

 

Adoption is out of the question.  Has to be my genes and has to start from square one.  If I decided to have one kid with my partner, conflict may arise with who's sperm gets into the egg.  This is a non-issue with a nuclear family. Which leads to...

 

3. Genetic favoritism.

 

If both of us have surrogate children, favoritism by genetic origin could cause conflict.  This I have second thoughts on, because virtue trumps bloodline, and children raised virtuously can't help but mirror that virtue.

It's fascinating that OP had some anxiousness towards a potential conflict with his partner.....so he came to talk to the FDR board about it.  OP, go talk to your partner about this!  Also, I may be taking this out of context but "has to be my genes" seems to be an ultimatum to me.  I think this may be the source of your stress around opening up this conversation.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2017 at 8:30 AM, ShindouHikaru said:

And when did I suggest that a child who was traumatized is doomed to become a complete failure?

When you said that dysfunction was irreversible for adopted children over five, I've gotten the impression, too, that you implied that those type of children were doomed for lifelong failure. That's why I went on a slight tangent how I didn't keel over in spite of coming from a dysfunctional background. Can you please elaborate your point? Perhaps I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, S1988 said:

When you said that dysfunction was irreversible for adopted children over five, I've gotten the impression, too, that you implied that those type of children were doomed for lifelong failure. That's why I went on a slight tangent how I didn't keel over in spite of coming from a dysfunctional background. Can you please elaborate your point? Perhaps I'm missing something.

You will never be an individual who wasn't abused. The dysfunction that surrounded you during your critical brain development will never be erased. The trauma will remain in your unconscious. The dysfunctional habits you developed during this time will be deep in your basal ganglia, just waiting for stressors to draw them back out. Sure, you can mitigate the effects of the trauma experienced by adopted children, and of course they're not doomed to failure. But they will never be a child who wasn't abused. 

You could get shot in the belly. And as a result of this develop a multitude of negative health effects. Spending months (potentially years) in rehabilitation. And during this time, you learnt a lot about philosophy, about yourself, introspect deeply, became wise, gained a lot of virtues, etc,etc. Sure, sure these are great benefits, but you will always have those subsequent negative health consequences. They will never go away and will always be a part of you. 

As in, if you could choose to pour your resources into a child, why in the holy fuck would you choose lower grade specimen relative to your own genetic code? Why would you jump into a total unknown, and choose someone who would never be an equal to your own child in terms of future virtue, empathy, compassion, problem solving capacities, self soothing mechanisms, etc,etc,etc Since your biological child will have been peacefully parented from the beginning and as such won't be given such a gargantuan led weight around their neck. A 90% brain development led weight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.