Platonic Parenting???

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Relatively new by what standard? Your case is anecdotal and not at all universal. 

I was not talking about my case as evidence, of the claim, just thought I would share it anecdotally. The "nuclear family" is a twentieth century term and although the concept can be traced to the 17th century in some places and even as far back as 13th century England, it was not the universal norm. And the nuclear family structure was not the preference in America  until the 20th century. Compare that to thousands of years of human history. The historical and anthropological evidence suggest that most human beings throughout time have not lived in a mother-father-children household.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

I agree with you, sir. Children are not an accessory. However, to want to be a parent despite not being in a relationship is not morally unacceptable. I have a straight male friend who chose surrogacy because he wanted to be a father and rather than have a child as a positive consequence of a marriage. IOW, his choice to be a father had everything to do with him and the child. The negative consequence of this is that there are ignoramuses who make assumptions about the type of sex life he chooses to live. Vile and disgusting lot they are. Even if promiscuity were an issue, it is none of society's business.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

I would absolutely love it if everyone lived in the sort of vacuum posited by Libertarians, in which no single [in the numerical sense] person's choices have any sort of negative impact whatsoever on anyone else.  Alas, we do not.  And, while I laud your male friend's commitment to being responsible, and while attempting to walk the fine line between loving the sinner but not loving the sin can be tricky business in a pluralistic society, it is precisely because so many people make irresponsible "personal" choices that foist negative consequences on innocent victims that those choices are society's business.  Too often, it is society which foots the bill for the negative social consequences of such choices.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/31/i-wanted-to-meet-a-mate-and-have-a-baby-without-wasting-time-the-rise-of-platonic-co-parenting?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As if family law attorneys aren't busy enough already. 

I suppose this sort of thing is a step up from a one-night stand, but still ...

No, marriage is no guarantee that things won't turn sour.  Nevertheless ...

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

Well, in a sense, big yawn. This has been happening for decades now. The article is only describing its formalization.

I don't think this represents anything pivotal.

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/4/2020 at 5:38 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/31/i-wanted-to-meet-a-mate-and-have-a-baby-without-wasting-time-the-rise-of-platonic-co-parenting?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As if family law attorneys aren't busy enough already. 

I suppose this sort of thing is a step up from a one-night stand, but still ...

No, marriage is no guarantee that things won't turn sour.  Nevertheless ...

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

I think it would be difficult not to fall in love and want to be with someone given the description of the process. I suppose it could be done. Nothing surprises me anymore except sometimes what Sister Gui and the kids give me for Christmas.

I wonder how  kindergarten teachers view this. 

Quote

People have started to recognise that the person you have kids with may not be the person you grow old with – but they still want the influences of both a mother and father in their child’s life. They want that consistency, financial help and support system.

I’m eternally grateful the person with whom I have children is also the person with whom I am growing old. Yes, divorce, death, and other circumstances often make this impossible, nevertheless I believe it is what God intends for our greatest happiness.  I realize not everyone shares this view.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

To be clear (notwithstanding Duncan's rep point), I don't think you're arguing that the status quo or that any new "innovation" such as that detailed in the article linked to in the opening post is a good thing.  (Knowing you as I think I do through your posting history, I highly doubt it ... to put it mildly.)

to put it mildly, indeed.  I'll continue to try to prevent myself from going into rant mode against all of the things in this world that I do not like and am not in favor of.  And avoiding the harmful effects of gamma rays.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Ahab

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

to put it mildly, indeed.  I'll continue to try to prevent myself from going into rant mode against all of the things in this world that I do not like and am not in favor of.  And avoiding the harmful effects of gamma rays.

Given some of the other reactions on this thread ( ) I wouldn't expect you to go into "Rant Mode."  To hear most of my interlocutors tell it, apparently, I "overreacted" (my word) simply by starting the thread.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Given some of the other reactions on this thread ( ) I wouldn't expect you to go into "Rant Mode."  To hear most of my interlocutors tell it, apparently, I "overreacted" (my word) simply by starting the thread.

Overreacted?  You?  No I don't think so.  Just pointing out something else that isn't right in this world even though it is becoming more popular.  So I will now simply say this:

"Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/4/2020 at 8:38 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/31/i-wanted-to-meet-a-mate-and-have-a-baby-without-wasting-time-the-rise-of-platonic-co-parenting?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As if family law attorneys aren't busy enough already. 

I suppose this sort of thing is a step up from a one-night stand, but still ...

No, marriage is no guarantee that things won't turn sour.  Nevertheless ...

And how does the phenomenon described in the article linked above square with this?

Family lawyers like a lot of other lawyers are being made irrelevant thanks to website that provide legal doc's, templates, etc. 

Yes, this type of thing will increase in coming years.  You're Nevertheless...(shrug emoji) doesnt persuade most people to get married, no matter the consequences.

Religion is the only thing that has kept birth rates on life support. Religion is not popular amongst the tender snowflakes of recent generations.

If you weren't religious and saw the weaponizaed divorce courts, alimony, pre-nup's tossed out by judges, etc. what would you do? 

Probably never marry. If you wanted a kid, then platonic parenting is there for you.

I wonder when polygamy/polyamory will be legalized though (I support plural marriage and dont see it as a negative consequence or boogeyman from SSM). Probably after every other approach is tried. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think it would be difficult not to fall in love and want to be with someone given the description of the process. I suppose it could be done. Nothing surprises me anymore except sometimes what Sister Gui and the kids give me for Christmas.

I wonder how  kindergarten teachers view this. 

I’m eternally grateful the person with whom I have children is also the person with whom I am growing old. Yes, divorce, death, and other circumstances often make this impossible, nevertheless I believe it is what God intends for our greatest happiness.  I realize not everyone shares this view.

I'm grateful to be with the other parent of my children, too, especially since we really like each other and have a healthy relationship. However I am also very grateful that times have changed to make it easier for people to leave unhealthy relationships. I think it also strengthens us to know that even though we're not stuck together we want to be with each other. So in other words I think the relative freedom to leave makes the individuals and their relationship stronger.

[Damien the Leper]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was not talking about my case as evidence, of the claim, just thought I would share it anecdotally. The "nuclear family" is a twentieth century term and although the concept can be traced to the 17th century in some places and even as far back as 13th century England, it was not the universal norm. And the nuclear family structure was not the preference in America  until the 20th century. Compare that to thousands of years of human history. The historical and anthropological evidence suggest that most human beings throughout time have not lived in a mother-father-children household.

I'm well aware with the history of human dynamics where the family is concerned. You're right...the nuclear family is only a preference and not a standard.

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The historical and anthropological evidence suggest that most human beings throughout time have not lived in a mother-father-children household.

The crux in the nuclear family concept is the type of relationship, not what the "household" situation is like.  It always has taken both a man and a woman to have a family, thereafter referred to as Mother and Father when they have started their own family unit.

[Damien the Leper]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I would absolutely love it if everyone lived in the sort of vacuum posited by Libertarians, in which no single [in the numerical sense] person's choices have any sort of negative impact whatsoever on anyone else.  Alas, we do not.  And, while I laud your male friend's commitment to being responsible, and while attempting to walk the fine line between loving the sinner but not loving the sin can be tricky business in a pluralistic society, it is precisely because so many people make irresponsible "personal" choices that foist negative consequences on innocent victims that those choices are society's business.  Too often, it is society which foots the bill for the negative social consequences of such choices.

I understand where you're coming from. Pluralism and egalitarianism should drive us to a more compassionate, ethical and moral society. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I understand where you're coming from. Pluralism and egalitarianism should drive us to a more compassionate, ethical and moral society. 

Sure.  There is no where else to go but up from the worst philosophies in existence.  The facts show that we are not equal, and yet for some reason many people believe everyone should be treated as if everyone is equal.

Now we need to think of something that actually will help people to get along together even though in fact none of us is an equal to anyone else. 

Somehow we all need to develop a desire to do only that which is right and good while realizing it is not good to be evil or do evil things.

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'm well aware with the history of human dynamics where the family is concerned. You're right...the nuclear family is only a preference and not a standard.

Glad we cleared that up!

[Kenngo1969]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sure.  There is no where else to go but up from the worst philosophies in existence.  The facts show that we are not equal, and yet for some reason many people believe everyone should be treated as if everyone is equal. ...

It depends on what sort of equality one is considering.  I'm sure you would agree that we all have infinite worth as children of God.  In that sense, we're "equal."  I think what you're getting at is that simply because everyone is of infinite worth, that does not, as a result, mean that everyone is the same.  Each of us might have infinite worth in God's eyes, but, of course, your gifts are different than my gifts, and the gifts that each of us, respectively, possess are different than those that yet another person might possess.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It depends on what sort of equality one is considering.  I'm sure you would agree that we all have infinite worth as children of God.  In that sense, we're "equal."  I think what you're getting at is that simply because everyone is of infinite worth, that does not, as a result, mean that everyone is the same.  Each of us might have infinite worth in God's eyes, but, of course, your gifts are different than my gifts, and the gifts that each of us, respectively, possess are different than those that yet another person might possess.

Infinite worth?  Not quite how I see things.  I would say our worth is relative to our level of and potential for perfection, and since some of us really aren't interested in becoming perfect and perfectly good their worth doesn't measure up to those who are.

And I'd also say it's a big stretch to say that people who have the potential to become perfect are equal in worth to the people who are already perfect. 

We are talking about equality, here, remember.  Something about not being worth dust is coming into my mind for some reason.  Do you really want everyone to think we are each equal in worth to our Father in heaven?

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Infinite worth?  Not quite how I see things.  I would say our worth is relative to our level of and potential for perfection, and since some of us really aren't interested in becoming perfect and perfectly good their worth doesn't measure up to those who are.

And I'd also say it's a big stretch to say that people who have the potential to become perfect are equal in worth to the people who are already perfect. 

We are talking about equality, here, remember.  Something about not being worth dust is coming into my mind for some reason.  Do you really want everyone to think we are each equal in worth to our Father in heaven?

This is probably a conversation better had on another thread, which you're welcome to start, although I reserve the right to participate ... or not.  Best wishes.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Given some of the other reactions on this thread ( ) I wouldn't expect you to go into "Rant Mode."  To hear most of my interlocutors tell it, apparently, I "overreacted" (my word) simply by starting the thread.

I don't see it as an overreaction at all.  Perhaps the "nuclear family" has not been the norm for the past 10,000 years, but I think we deserve some credit for the system that has come to be. Even if the world at large does not accept the Family Proclamation, it remains a true prophetic statement and warning, especially here because part of the conditions for prospering in this land is to obey the commandments of God.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm grateful to be with the other parent of my children, too, especially since we really like each other and have a healthy relationship. However I am also very grateful that times have changed to make it easier for people to leave unhealthy relationships. I think it also strengthens us to know that even though we're not stuck together we want to be with each other. So in other words I think the relative freedom to leave makes the individuals and their relationship stronger.

I believe God wants us to honor our covenants and make the best of the relationships we are in, but I don't believe he expects us to stay in abusive relationships. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

but I think we deserve some credit for the system that has come to be.

I disagree.  I think the norm of having a mom and dad and minor kids living under one roof and only visit g with grandparents or adult siblings has led to smaller families and weaker family connections. My cousins are practical strangers and I know a number of people who don't even know their cousins' names.  Connections are only made st weddings and funerals and less of those as years go by.

I think one of the reasons that children are seen as 'accessories' of parents rather than parents and kids part of a larger web or family legacy  is because of the ideal of the independent parents with minor kids and then empty nesters, enjoying their golden years traveling, having fun, etc. because they did their time as parents and now their grandkids are only around to have fun with....or not.

I believe the "nuclear family" survives better when it is not a nuclear family, but not sure how to find data for that.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree.  I think the norm of having a mom and dad and minor kids living under one roof and only visit g with grandparents or adult siblings has led to smaller families and weaker family connections. My cousins are practical strangers and I know a number of people who don't even know their cousins' names.  Connections are only made st weddings and funerals and less of those as years go by.

I think one of the reasons that children are seen as 'accessories' of parents rather than parents and kids part of a larger web or family legacy  is because of the ideal of the independent parents with minor kids and then empty nesters, enjoying their golden years traveling, having fun, etc. because they did their time as parents and now their grandkids are only around to have fun with....or not.

I believe the "nuclear family" survives better when it is not a nuclear family, but not sure how to find data for that.

It would be interesting if someone had done a study or collected data on situations in which the members of the extended family are living in close quarters versus those in which they are far-flung, and the differences in various outcome measures between the two: It is my understanding that, in Europe (and perhaps in Latin America, as well), extended family do tend to live in close quarters.

[Kenngo1969]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I believe God wants us to honor our covenants and make the best of the relationships we are in, but I don't believe he expects us to stay in abusive relationships. 

Indeed not!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It would be interesting if someone had done a study or collected data on situations in which the members of the extended family are living in close quarters versus those in which they are far-flung, and the differences in various outcome measures between the two: It is my understanding that, in Europe (and perhaps in Latin America, as well), extended family do tend to live in close quarters.

But how do you eliminate other cultural factors sufficiently to be able to tell that has such and such effect. 
 

Not a sociologist or anthropologist here. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

But how do you eliminate other cultural factors sufficiently to be able to tell that has such and such effect. 
 

Not a sociologist or anthropologist here. 

True enough.  Perhaps the aim, rather than eliminating the effect of such factors, should be to study that effect to determine whether families in the U.S. might receive similar benefits by having more closely-knit families, and/or to determine, despite the differences that are undeniable, whether sufficient similarity exists that a similar benefit might result from being more closely knit.

[katherine the great]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe the "nuclear family" survives better when it is not a nuclear family, but not sure how to find data for that.

I also think that the nuclear family can be very isolating for the "stay at home" mom. Unless she has a tight group of friends or family members very close by, it can be unbearably lonely.