The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[Gary Childress]

Are men not also guilty of sexual misconduct if they sleep around, according to Islamic law or not? Should they not also bear the burden of childcare for any child that they produce outside of marriage, according to Islamic law or not? And if not, then why not?

ChatGPT: Do men bear the burden of childcare for any child that they produce outside of marriage, according to Islamic law?

In Islamic law (Sharia), the issue of paternity and responsibility for children born outside of marriage is quite specific and based on classical jurisprudence. Here's a clear breakdown:

1. Legitimacy and Paternity
A child born outside of wedlock (i.e., due to zina, or unlawful sexual intercourse) is considered illegitimate in traditional Islamic jurisprudence.
The biological father is not legally recognized as the father in terms of inheritance, lineage (nasab), or custodial rights and responsibilities.
The child is legally attributed only to the mother.

Key Hadith (Sahih Muslim, etc.):
"The child is for the [marital] bed, and the adulterer gets nothing."
This hadith forms the basis for denying legal paternity to a man in cases of zina.

2. Financial Responsibility
Because the biological father is not considered the legal father in Islamic law, he is not obligated to financially support or provide for the child.
The mother, or her family, typically bears the responsibility for the child.

A sperm donor is also not required to bear the burden of childcare. If the biological father has not recognized the woman as his wife, then her pregnancy is not his responsibility. The adulterer gets nothing.

It seems unfair to females, though. Males are just as guilty of "adultery" as females in sexual relations. Why should females be disproportionately punished?

[godelian]

It seems unfair to females, though. Males are just as guilty of "adultery" as females in sexual relations. Why should females be disproportionately punished?

Both adulterers get nothing. Same punishment. The one nothing is not bigger than the other nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

Not so sure.

Just wait. You'll be sure.

In order to replace dead bodies, you need to reproduce. It is clearly not the two billion Muslims who will face a huge problem when it comes to that.

Yes, you do. And you're not wrong to think that the anti-male, Feminist orientation of the West has produced a culture of death, one that murders its babies and is demographically committing suicide at the moment. I don't defend them at all, for that.

But it has zero to do with democracy, really. It has a lot to do with the wickedness of human nature. Worse things have been done by regimes that were far more authoritarian, like the PRC. And while we're on the subject of family, remind me: who is it who invented bachi baza..., who practice wife abuse...child "marriage"...who have religiously-approved sexual assault of 'infidels'...who form grooming gangs...and who send their own children, strapped with bombs, into civilian and war zones to be blown to pieces?

Tell me, if you can, just how "family friendly" these are.

Until they represent family values better than that, you'd be better not to hold them up as a moral example of anything. Their "glass house" is far too susceptible to "stones."

[godelian]

Just wait. You'll be sure.

In order to replace dead bodies, you need to reproduce. It is clearly not the two billion Muslims who will face a huge problem when it comes to that.

Yes, you do. And you're not wrong to think that the anti-male, Feminist orientation of the West has produced a culture of death, one that murders its babies and is demographically committing suicide at the moment. I don't defend them at all, for that.

But it has zero to do with democracy, really. It has a lot to do with the wickedness of human nature. Worse things have been done by regimes that were far more authoritarian, like the PRC. And while we're on the subject of family, remind me: who is it who invented bachi baza..., who practice wife abuse...child "marriage"...who have religiously-approved sexual assault of 'infidels'...who form grooming gangs...and who send their own children, strapped with bombs, into civilian and war zones to be blown to pieces?

Tell me, if you can, just how "family friendly" these are.

Until they represent family values better than that, you'd be better not to hold them up as a moral example of anything. Their "glass house" is far too susceptible to "stones."

Soviet-style whataboutism is not the answer to anything.

[Immanuel Can]

In order to replace dead bodies, you need to reproduce. It is clearly not the two billion Muslims who will face a huge problem when it comes to that.

Yes, you do. And you're not wrong to think that the anti-male, Feminist orientation of the West has produced a culture of death, one that murders its babies and is demographically committing suicide at the moment. I don't defend them at all, for that.

But it has zero to do with democracy, really. It has a lot to do with the wickedness of human nature. Worse things have been done by regimes that were far more authoritarian, like the PRC. And while we're on the subject of family, remind me: who is it who invented bachi baza..., who practice wife abuse...child "marriage"...who have religiously-approved sexual assault of 'infidels'...who form grooming gangs...and who send their own children, strapped with bombs, into civilian and war zones to be blown to pieces?

Tell me, if you can, just how "family friendly" these are.

Until they represent family values better than that, you'd be better not to hold them up as a moral example of anything. Their "glass house" is far too susceptible to "stones."

Soviet-style whataboutism is not the answer to anything.

It's not "whataboutism," and it has nothing to do with the Soviets. It would only be "whataboutism" if I were implying that the West could be excused by the failures of Islam to be pro-family: and I'm making no apology whatsoever for Western families. They're dysfunctional, alright.

On the contrary, I'm examining your claim that Islam has claim to the moral high ground when it comes to families. Let's let Islam stand on its own two feet, if it can. What justification does it have to offer itself as the pattern of proper family life, given it's current practices?

[godelian]

On the contrary, I'm examining your claim that Islam has claim to the moral high ground when it comes to families. Let's let Islam stand on its own two feet, if it can. What justification does it have to offer itself as the pattern of proper family life, given it's current practices?

Our biology hasn't changed for 300,000 years. Therefore, there is no need for our reproductive practices to change either. Any continuation of practices that have existed since the beginning of our species, is perfectly fine.

[Gary Childress]

It seems unfair to females, though. Males are just as guilty of "adultery" as females in sexual relations. Why should females be disproportionately punished?

Both adulterers get nothing. Same punishment. The one nothing is not bigger than the other nothing.

Females get stuck with a baby to support don't they? Males do not, correct?

[godelian]

It seems unfair to females, though. Males are just as guilty of "adultery" as females in sexual relations. Why should females be disproportionately punished?

Both adulterers get nothing. Same punishment. The one nothing is not bigger than the other nothing.

Females get stuck with a baby to support don't they? Males do not, correct?

So? If you don't want a baby to support, then don't have sex. Simple, no?

[Gary Childress]

Both adulterers get nothing. Same punishment. The one nothing is not bigger than the other nothing.

Females get stuck with a baby to support don't they? Males do not, correct?

So? If you don't want a baby to support, then don't have sex. Simple, no?

It doesn't matter for males. Islamic males apparently don't support them anyway, females do. Doesn't seem just.

[Immanuel Can]

On the contrary, I'm examining your claim that Islam has claim to the moral high ground when it comes to families. Let's let Islam stand on its own two feet, if it can. What justification does it have to offer itself as the pattern of proper family life, given it's current practices?

Our biology hasn't changed for 300,000 years.

Islam's only about 1500 years old. Human biology is much, much older than that. What right has Islam to define anybody's biological imperatives? Meanwhile, the Koran contains no biological content or knowledge at all, and doesn't even pretend to.

But back to my question: what certifies Islam as justifiably authoritative on families, given its practices?

[godelian]

On the contrary, I'm examining your claim that Islam has claim to the moral high ground when it comes to families. Let's let Islam stand on its own two feet, if it can. What justification does it have to offer itself as the pattern of proper family life, given it's current practices?

Our biology hasn't changed for 300,000 years.

Islam's only about 1500 years old. Human biology is much, much older than that. What right has Islam to define anybody's biological imperatives? Meanwhile, the Koran contains no biological content or knowledge at all, and doesn't even pretend to.

But back to my question: what certifies Islam as justifiably authoritative on families, given its practices?

Islam is authoritative for Muslims because they accept it. Your whataboutism is obviously irrelevant. The very first thing that you need to learn about Islam is that Muslims do not care whatsoever about what unbelievers think about Islam. Hence, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

[godelian]

Females get stuck with a baby to support don't they? Males do not, correct?

So? If you don't want a baby to support, then don't have sex. Simple, no?

It doesn't matter for males. Islamic males apparently don't support them anyway, females do. Doesn't seem just.

Just and unjust are defined by the moral law.

[Gary Childress]

So? If you don't want a baby to support, then don't have sex. Simple, no?

It doesn't matter for males. Islamic males apparently don't support them anyway, females do. Doesn't seem just.

Just and unjust are defined by the moral law.

Laws made by religions can be immoral if they don't meet basic conceptions of morality such as fairness. If one demographic gets inordinately punished more than another in something caused by both then it's very plainly unjust. Simply saying "God wants it that way" even if something seems unjust on the surface can be a dangerous proclivity in religion. We humans ultimately must be the final interpreters of what is moral. And we clearly have moral sensibilities. Whether they be God given or not, failing to pay heed to our innate moral intuitions can often end up badly. For example: slavery has been justified by religious doctrine in the past. Current generations are still suffering in the process of working through past injustices.

[Immanuel Can]

Our biology hasn't changed for 300,000 years.

Islam's only about 1500 years old. Human biology is much, much older than that. What right has Islam to define anybody's biological imperatives? Meanwhile, the Koran contains no biological content or knowledge at all, and doesn't even pretend to.

But back to my question: what certifies Islam as justifiably authoritative on families, given its practices?

Islam is authoritative for Muslims...

Well, only for those people who've already been fooled by Islam; and Zoroastrianism is authoritative for Zoroastrians, and Hinduism is authoritative for Hindus, and Judaism is authoritative for Jews, and Satanism for Satanists, and Marxism for Marxists...but you're begging the question: why SHOULD Islam be granted any authority by anybody, given that it's record of family destruction is so obvious?

[godelian]

Laws made by religions can be immoral if they don't meet basic conceptions of morality such as fairness.

So, one definition for morality is immoral, if it does not satisfy the requirements of another definition .... which one? Where is that other definition documented?

Feel free to use ChatGPT to produce a ruling based on that other definition.

If one demographic gets inordinately punished more than another in something caused by both then it's very plainly unjust.

In that case, nature is unjust, but who exactly cares? Women can get pregnant. Men cannot. Feel free to complain about that all you want.