NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage? I know it's from the GOP's scare tactic handbook, but honestly, if a gay couple move in next door to you, and they adopt a child or if their lesbian, one of them give birth, is that really going to affect your own personal "family values"? If the Right Wing nuts and Religious Fundies want to know what's really destroying "Family values", I can point to several, and I mean several dysfunctional families and broken homes that have destroyed the so called "Family values" more than any married gay couple ever could've.

I'm not saying that gays and lesbian won't have dysfunctional families or broken home of their own, but let's be honest, the simple fact that they are married won't ruin the obsolete notion of "family values" when straight families that has abusive parents, cheating parents, neglectful parents, etc. have done enough damage to this archaic notion.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

/soapbox

I think its inferior spelling myself :p

though its odd how you support Ron Paul the man who would of likely ended up with lynching being re-introduced and still support gay rights

I think its inferior spelling myself :p

though its odd how you support Ron Paul the man who would of likely ended up with lynching being re-introduced and still support gay rights

I never said I supported ALL of his policies, and congrats for the shortest amount of time it has taken to hijack a thread!

http://www.christiesoftware.ca/resource/winner.png

Each to his own. That's what this damned country is founded on. We should start practicing what we preach.

I never said I supported ALL of his policies

ah but its a crucial issue seeing as how your friend doesn't want it even though its more or less an issue of human rights

my position and more or less every post in this thread will be supportive of gay marriage the issue is how do we deal with those that aren't (which is a much more serious issue than gay marriage itself)

and congrats for the shortest amount of time it has taken to hijack a thread!

huray! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9k9LmLjONwc)

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Ya know, I've always wondered why if someone was against the war, against Bush supports so-and-so (Ron Paul in this case) then they should be for Same sex Marriage?

Is there a checklist where inorder to be considered Libertarian/Conservative/Liberal you HAVE to be for these items and against those with no exception?

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage?
Come from? Ruffy explained it rather well once:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg

Ya know, I've always wondered why if someone was against the war, against Bush supports so-and-so (Ron Paul in this case) then they should be for Same sex Marriage?

Is there a checklist where inorder to be considered Libertarian/Conservative/Liberal you HAVE to be for these items and against those with no exception?
Libertarianism = "Get yer nose out of mah buis-i-ness". You'll find that to be a common thread in their stances on the problems above.

Come from? Ruffy explained it rather well once:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HowGaymarriageaffectsthesanctityofm.jpg

You win forever.

I think gay marriage is great

i mean anyone should be able to marry who they want

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

and then our children could be.......

oh, wait.

we couldn't have children

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

Libertarianism = "Get yer nose out of mah buis-i-ness". You'll find that to be a common thread in their stances on the problems above.

Pretty much. *gives Kamsaki Myu a slice of Cheesecake*

This is a misplaced argument. In essence Mr./Ms. OP you are arguing that traditional heterosexual couples can also destroy "traditional family values" instead of arguing properly that homosexual couples do not destroy "traditional family values".

In other words, you have agreed that homosexual couples can also destroy "traditional family values" instead of arguing against them.

It would be nice if somebody could define "traditional family values".

You win forever.I didn't draw it, Il Ruffino did. As much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for his noble sacrifice.

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists

There is your problem. You should not be consorting with Baptists in any form, least of all Southern Baptsists.

was a Ron Paul supporter.


That should have been the flag that this guy was probably a loon who was anti-immigrant, anti-anyone not a WASP, and most likely anti-gay.

There is your problem. You should not be consorting with Baptists in any form, least of all Southern Baptsists.Meh, I get along well with my dad, despite me being an agnostic Green and him being a devout Republican.

I think even if they showed in any way that they are "destroying family values" (which I think they don't), that would still deserve less attention than say, a million other problems within families themselves such as crazy high divorce rate, child abuse, diseases (cancer, etc), poverty...and the list goes on.

Seriously, before anyone tries to ban gay marriage, they should try to eliminate ridiculous levels of poverty, which is still seen (if not common) in the U.S. (and probably every other country).

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity.
To boost your self-confidence, because you know that you can so very easily kick their arse in an argument, and you love to feel superior.

Yeah wilgrove ron paul is a nut. when the policy of his I most agree with is the return of Letters of marque something is wrong. though I am certain it would lower US oil prices, as they would certainly be issued against Iran and Venezuela.

I think gay marriage is great

i mean anyone should be able to marry who they want

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

and then our children could be.......

oh, wait.

we couldn't have children

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

And what does that have to do with the price of beans?
Cooked food isn't natural, should we outlaw that as well?

It would be nice if somebody could define "traditional family values".

I think you've put your finger on it there. ;)

What conservatives tend to mean by "traditional family values" is an ideal that was thought up by middle class Victorians. It's not eaxctly a tradition that ever existed in real life, but then again, the kind of people who go for "traditional values" have a tendency not to mind about reality too much anyway.
Nostalgia or death!

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

There are so many things wrong with this sentence. How would you go about "trying" to be gay, if you just aren't? Who in the world wants "everyone" to be gay? Why do you assume has to be the same, anyway? The world is not suffering from a shortage of procreators.

I think you've put your finger on it there. ;)

What conservatives tend to mean by "traditional family values" is an ideal that was thought up by middle class Victorians. It's not eaxctly a tradition that ever existed in real life, but then again, the kind of people who go for "traditional values" have a tendency not to mind about reality too much anyway.
Nostalgia or death!

Yeah. I don't like it when they say "the olden times were better" because the olden times had lots of things we didn't like too, which is why we progress. Each age has its unique set of merits and demerits. The Victorian times didn't have TV or electronics. It's impossible to raise a child today without taking into consideration these.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

Simple answer is "no." There are many threats to "family values" (assuming we can find a common definition for the term) and they exist all around us. Divorce & remarriage, the two full time working couple, and many others put tremendous stress on the traditional family unit. Generally speaking those who complain the loudest about someone breaking family values has probably already broken them themselves.

I can see SOME problems with gay couples raising children (Lack of a father/mother or teasing at school) But they're not eroding family values. That already happened. If a gay couple wants to raise a child, it'll be much better then the child being an orphan. In fact, it's MUCH better then most of the problems families face today. Divorce tears a kid apart (I know :(). The two full time working couple dosen't really open up for a whole lot of family time. I know as sure as heck I'd rather be raised by a gay couple then any of the aforementioned problems.

And what does that have to do with the price of beans?
Cooked food isn't natural, should we outlaw that as well?

You're hungry, aren't you?

For this debate to work, we need to establish what "family values" are, because like morality it's purely subjective and depends on the person. We need a general definition from which to work, otherwise, we're up against a brick wall and the debate will be nothing more than...

http://www.weaselhut.net/ping_pong_cats.gif

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

Except, you know, for all (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/10/birds-and-bees.html) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals) animals (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456716/Born-flamingos-loving-daddies.html) who regularly engage in homosexual activity.

Putting something in ALL CAPS doesn't make it true.

You tried to use Reason around a Bible Nut...

I learned my lesson about that a long time ago, lol...

Its never pretty...Take it from someone who lives in the "Bible Belt".....I really hate that label...

You're hungry, aren't you?

Nah, just eaten... that's a full belly talking, not an empty one. :D

Except, you know, for all the animals who regularly engage in homosexual activity.

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

If there's one thing to be said about evolution, it's that there are no steps back, ever. There is no devolving, just situations and adaption.

But claiming that homosexuality is not natural is total bollocks for two reasons :

1) Human beings are - and have always been - homosexual. There was never a time without a certain percentage of the population being homosexual, therefore homosexuality must be natural

2) Humans aren't the only species engaging in homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality has been observed in a wide variety of species worldwide. It's not a freak mutation that occured to homo sapiens at some point. Therefore it must be natural.

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

No, it's a statement that proves that homosexuality occurs naturally within nature, and that it isn't unnatural that it happens with humans.

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

No, I'm refuting the claim that being teh gay is not natural, or some sort of hedonistic lifestyle choice only hell bound humans are capable of making. It happens in nature (ie, outside the sphere of human influence,) therefore, homosexuality is not unnatural.

Nah, just eaten... that's a full belly talking, not an empty one. :D
I knew it was one or the other.
If there's one thing to be said about evolution, it's that there are no steps back, ever. There is no devolving, just situations and adaption.

But claiming that homosexuality is not natural is total bollocks for two reasons :

1) Human beings are - and have always been - homosexual. There was never a time without a certain percentage of the population being homosexual, therefore homosexuality must be natural

2) Humans aren't the only species engaging in homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality has been observed in a wide variety of species worldwide. It's not a freak mutation that occured to homo sapiens at some point. Therefore it must be natural.

And of course if it wasn't natural then we'd come to pointing out that things like modern medicine or clothes aren't natural either. So not natural != bad. It's pretty difficult to make a sensible argument against homosexuality.

I think gay marriage is great

i mean anyone should be able to marry who they want

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

and then our children could be.......

oh, wait.

we couldn't have children

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

your argumant has a falw-Their will never be a margority ho-mo population.
They can have kids- Artifical insemination,adoption.
There kids will probely be staright(thogh their is a high chance thier be gay)
Im not gay myself but im not homophobic. To be honest i go to a faith school.....so im used to bisexuals

And of course if it wasn't natural then we'd come to pointing out that things like modern medicine or clothes aren't natural either. So not natural != bad. It's pretty difficult to make a sensible argument against homosexuality.

Oh, I'm not claiming that everything that's natural is automatically good. I think that's a pretty dumb stance to take. But it's equally dumb to assume that natural would equal bad...
Natural is just natural, it's neither good nor bad. And homosexuality is definitely entirely natural.

No, I'm refuting the claim that being teh gay is not natural, or some sort of hedonistic lifestyle choice only hell bound humans are capable of making. It happens in nature (ie, outside the sphere of human influence,) therefore, homosexuality is not unnatural.

True, science has proved that people are born homosexual, and, thus, it can be called natural. But people are also born blind or mentally challenged. Both of these states are natural, but does this mean that they are good?

True, science has proved that people are born homosexual, and, thus, it can be called natural. But people are also born blind or mentally challenged. Both of these states are natural, but does this mean that they are good?

Nobody is suggesting that natural = good. Just pointing out that not natural != bad. Like Cabra said. Natural is just natural.

True, science has proved that people are born homosexual, and, thus, it can be called natural. But people are also born blind or mentally challenged. Both of these states are natural, but does this mean that they are good?

Comparing homosexuality to blindness or mental impairment only serves to weaken your argument as homosexuality does not leave one at a physical disadvantage in life.

True, science has proved that people are born homosexual, and, thus, it can be called natural. But people are also born blind or mentally challenged. Both of these states are natural, but does this mean that they are good?

Well, one could make the argument that being blind or mentally disabled will mean that your life will have more severe restricitions and risks than if you could see and were mentally normal.
I fail to see how that would apply to homosexuality?

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

I have always understood it as a counter argument to the statement "Gays choose to be this way". That it has been documented in 'simpler' creatures gives more credibility that it is in fact an inborn trait, rather than a choice. So, it's not so much implying that we are de-evolving as it is attempting to discover more about ourselves through observation of other animals, which we do all the time, e.g. medical science.

Of course, this is over simplifying it and like most everything else, humans are a great deal more complicated than the rest of the creatures we share the planet with.

Well, one could make the argument that being blind or mentally disabled will mean that your life will have more severe restricitions and risks than if you could see and were mentally normal.
I fail to see how that would apply to homosexuality?

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to). Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?

I think gay marriage is great

i mean anyone should be able to marry who they want

I agree!

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

Wouldn't that go against "marry who you want" argument from before, seeing as no one really disputes that about 90% of people want members of the opposite sex?

and then our children could be.......

oh, wait.

we couldn't have children

Entertainingly, children are not actually brought by a magical stork only to happily married heterosexual couples.

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

I don't see that at all, actually, seeing as it quite definitely occurs in nature. In fact, I think we can safely say that it's a great deal more natural than, say, the computer you typed your post on.

True, science has proved that people are born homosexual, and, thus, it can be called natural. But people are also born blind or mentally challenged. Both of these states are natural, but does this mean that they are good?

No. It does, however, mean that saying "it's not natural!" is an exceedingly stupid way to argue against extending legal rights to blind or mentally challenged people.

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to). Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?

Being a homosexual does NOT prevent you at all. You may not be attracted but a guy can donate his sperm (even gay guys need self-loving) and a woman can easily use in-vitro using said donor sperm all while each remains in a homosexual relationship.

Using semantics as the basis of an argument is futile.

No. It does, however, mean that saying "it's not natural!" is an exceedingly stupid way to argue against extending legal rights to blind or mentally challenged people.

I have already agreed that homosexuality is natural. I am just saying that it is not automatically good because it is natural.

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to).

....this is going to come as news to the many gay people with kids.

Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?

Well, actually, there's quite a few circumstances in which procreation would be a less-than-ideal activity. Is anyone willing to argue that, say, a homeless meth-addicted 14-year-old should be wanting to procreate RIGHT NOW?

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to). Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?

I would argue that seeing is a lot more vital as a capability than procreating.
Also, gays do want to procreate, and actually do so. There are various options for any gay couple, and the choices are increasing as medical science moves on.

I have already agreed that homosexuality is natural. I am just saying that it is not automatically good because it is natural.

Let's play pervert your point of view for my purposes...

While I agree that heterosexuality is natural, it doesn't by default make it good. For one, it has resulted in overpopulation, and all those unwanted children...

Being blind prevents you from seeing
Being gay lets you see forms of beauty that others don't. If Michelangelo had been hetero, he would have painted the Sistine Chapel with a roller.

being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to)

Wrong. Homosexuals can and do have children. It just takes a little more effort than no longer using protection.

I have already agreed that homosexuality is natural. I am just saying that it is not automatically good because it is natural.

Nobody argued that. But is it automatically bad?

In the U.S. adoption rights, inheratance rights, and most other rights that hetro's have can be aquired by legal dealings. RAINBOW POWER.
We'll find a priest and a lawer, and do it any way. [dam't]

Let's play pervert your point of view for my purposes...

While I agree that heterosexuality is natural, it doesn't by default make it good. For one, it has resulted in overpopulation, and all those unwanted children...

Overpopulation is a problem, but not one being discussed here. Further, without all those heteros producing children, the human race would die out very quickly.

Wrong. Homosexuals can and do have children. It just takes a little more effort than no longer using protection.

More effort = greater energy expenditure
Any excess use of energy resources fails to advance the human race, and advancement of this race must be our primary goal.

Overpopulation is a problem, but not one being discussed here. Further, without all those heteros producing children, the human race would die out very quickly.

Which is an excellent argument against....um....killing all the straight people? Outlawing straight sex? I don't know, but it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage.

More effort = greater energy expenditure
Any excess use of energy resources fails to advance the human race, and advancement of this race must be our primary goal.

Of course, it's about the same amount of effort that many straight couples have to expend in order to have children. Not everyone is totally fertile, as you're no doubt aware. Is there something bad about such couples?

And if advancement of the human race is our goal then what's wrong with working towards allowing all adults to procreate, regardless of sexual orientation?

Overpopulation is a problem, but not one being discussed here. Further, without all those heteros producing children, the human race would die out very quickly.

Explain to me how it's only the str8 people that are producing children. You can be gay and bi and fuck women and have kids. There are lots of examples of closeted gay men who were married and have children. There may be those who are openly gay and fucked women too and had children (tho I dunno any in real life). Then there are sperm donations, and fertilizations like that. Gay doesnt mean you die when you touch a pussy.

On the other side str8 men can "get it up" with guys too. Eg: Jails (unfortunately). So str8 doesnt mean you die when you touch ass.

More effort = greater energy expenditure
Any excess use of energy resources fails to advance the human race, and advancement of this race must be our primary goal.

So we should sit on our asses all day and spend the minimum energy? I thought exercising and having a life and all that were healthy.

And humanity isnt a race. It's a species. Look it up, along with sexuality and procration.

More effort = greater energy expenditure
Any excess use of energy resources fails to advance the human race, and advancement of this race must be our primary goal.

:rolleyes:

Says who?
Please don't tell me you still believe that evolution works by species rather than by individual?

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

What do you wanna evolve to? Sex is perfectly natural, healthy and fun.

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage? I know it's from the GOP's scare tactic handbook, but honestly, if a gay couple move in next door to you, and they adopt a child or if their lesbian, one of them give birth, is that really going to affect your own personal "family values"? If the Right Wing nuts and Religious Fundies want to know what's really destroying "Family values", I can point to several, and I mean several dysfunctional families and broken homes that have destroyed the so called "Family values" more than any married gay couple ever could've.

I'm not saying that gays and lesbian won't have dysfunctional families or broken home of their own, but let's be honest, the simple fact that they are married won't ruin the obsolete notion of "family values" when straight families that has abusive parents, cheating parents, neglectful parents, etc. have done enough damage to this archaic notion.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

/soapbox

Oh as for the answer to the actual OP...I think some people actually do believe homosexuality is a choice. And they are afraid that themselves or their loved ones are gonna be "tricked" into such an immoral choice if homosexuality becomes widely accepted. And so they are afraid since those people also usually believe in hell and homosexuality will make you burn in hell forever, etc...

While many people make fun of such beliefs, it should be remembered that pretty much everyone may believe in something stupid, including best scientists themselves.

I have already agreed that homosexuality is natural. I am just saying that it is not automatically good because it is natural.

Good. No one else is saying that either.

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage? I know it's from the GOP's scare tactic handbook, but honestly, if a gay couple move in next door to you, and they adopt a child or if their lesbian, one of them give birth, is that really going to affect your own personal "family values"? If the Right Wing nuts and Religious Fundies want to know what's really destroying "Family values", I can point to several, and I mean several dysfunctional families and broken homes that have destroyed the so called "Family values" more than any married gay couple ever could've.

I'm not saying that gays and lesbian won't have dysfunctional families or broken home of their own, but let's be honest, the simple fact that they are married won't ruin the obsolete notion of "family values" when straight families that has abusive parents, cheating parents, neglectful parents, etc. have done enough damage to this archaic notion.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

/soapbox

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married. These values are timeless. Ok here I go about family values.

1. Family begins with a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children are a stain on a family's honor and are not a great way to bring children into this world. If you are gay or are not in a married relationship you are still a member of the family but are not in a position to start a new branch of the family.

2. Mom and Dad need to communicate with each other.

3. Mom and Dad need to be honest with each other.

4. Mom and Dad need to be honest with the children and communicate with them.

5. The children are the number one priority. If you are not ready to make them the number one priority, then you are not ready to have children.

6. The children must be disciplined if they need it. Anything less is child neglect and stains the honor of the family.

7. No family member must ever abuse another family member.

8. No family member shall dishonor the family (whatever that means is often a social variable)

9. Raising spoiled children is child neglect. See Rule 5.

10. Raising children in poverty is child neglect. If you are not economically ready to provide for a child you are not ready for children.

11. Adopting out or abortion is a family member's sole decision. Failure to do either when required by circumstances is a stain on the family's honor.

12. Parents may obligate children to do for their children as done onto them by their parents. An example is paying college education expenses.

13. Parents must do everything possible to encourage the moral and physical health of their children.

14. Family members should not withold reasonable requests for assistance from other family members.

15. Children must honor their parents. This does not always require something akin to filial piety. Each family member must honor their parents in their own way.

16. All family pets and other animals must be treated humanely.

17. All theistic family members must honor the Lord.

18. The natural beauty of the Earth and biodiversity must be maintained for all of the future generations of every living beiong on Earth as we are all members of the Earthling family on a basic level.

19. Familial honor must be defended. However, justice is tantamount.

20. Families must have leadership.

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married. These values are timeless. Ok here I go about family values.
Why are they timeless?

1. Family begins with a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children are a stain on a family's honor and are not a great way to bring children into this world. If you are gay or are not in a married relationship you are still a member of the family but are not in a position to start a new branch of the family.
Why?

A lot of other stuff, honour and what not

I can't be bothered to write 'Why?' after all these things. Kindly explain these family values to us.

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married.
As that's a demonstratibly false claim, it'd should come as no surprise that attention was focused on it.

Oh as for the answer to the actual OP...I think some people actually do believe homosexuality is a choice. And they are afraid that themselves or their loved ones are gonna be "tricked" into such an immoral choice if homosexuality becomes widely accepted. And so they are afraid since those people also usually believe in hell and homosexuality will make you burn in hell forever, etc...

While many people make fun of such beliefs, it should be remembered that pretty much everyone may believe in something stupid, including best scientists themselves.

Parenthood is a choice. The question is, "Is it good for homosexuals to choose to become parents?" I think that there is a big difference between a homosexual couple that become the guardians of a child and two that adopt or use other means of becoming parents. If parents decide that upon their death or incapacity, that homo couple or individual should be the guardians of their children, this should be respected because the man and woman's right to decide such matters is a fundamental family value.

Nobody can say that gays are meant to be parents as some kind of natural right because they were not given the means to do so naturally. I see nothing wrong with recognizing this natural law by saying that we as a society shall not do an end run around it by convention and or technology. However, next to the Lord, mom and dad are the ultimate masters of the family and if they both agree to have their child cared for by a gay couple or individual, society has no right to deny them this on this basis alone.

Why are they timeless?


Why?



I can't be bothered to write 'Why?' after all these things. Kindly explain these family values to us.

They are timeless because family is a common thread among all people. Some variations on the theme are variable.

Familial honor is important because it is a bond between family members throughout the living and the future and the past generations. These bonds are the bonds of obligation and duty. Without them there are no real familial rules or obligations except those imposed from without the family.

As that's a demonstratibly false claim, it'd should come as no surprise that attention was focused on it.

Good families are rooted in family values. Garbage families and families that are seperate from their good family relatives are not rooted in family values.

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

Neither is marriage, but we don't restrict you from practising the pointless pomp and Circumstance (piontless from a completely agnostic point of view, even though I am still a religious person [albeit a non-christian religious, which I asume is the first thing that you thought I meant]). In fact most of human life is incredibly unnatural. We live in enviroments we were never meant to survive, we eat thing that never occure in Nature, and generally live against the laws of Nature, in the presumption that we are "better" than Nature (as though that were possible). If you want to live natually, abandon technology, civilization, complex shelters, fend for yourself against the elements (oh, and no clothes or any cloth in general). If not, let us live our lives as unnaturally as we want.

Good families are rooted in family values. Garbage families and families that are seperate from their good family relatives are not rooted in family values.
Lovely stuff, but it goes no way to magically disappear the millions upon millions of families which don't consist of a man and a woman who are married.

They are timeless because family is a common thread among all people. Some variations on the theme are variable.
The past can't predict the future, especially not with things like human behaviour that don't appear to obey any rules. How do you know that these family values will continue into the future?

Familial honor is important because it is a bond between family members throughout the living and the future and the past generations. These bonds are the bonds of obligation and duty. Without them there are no real familial rules or obligations except those imposed from without the family.

Why do there need to be familial obligations? Why should I treat my family differently than anyone else?

Good families are rooted in family values. Garbage families and families that are seperate from their good family relatives are not rooted in family values.

That sounds true, but what are these family values you speak of?

Good families are rooted in family values. Garbage families and families that are seperate from their good family relatives are not rooted in family values.

Do I sense some circular reasoning? Good families are rooted in family values because families rooted in family values are good?

Lovely stuff, but it goes no way to magically disappear the millions upon millions of families which don't consist of a man and a woman who are married.

My point is that proper and good families are rooted in family values. It is like car design. Any fool company can design a car but only well designed cars are well designed cars.

Do I sense some circular reasoning? Good families are rooted in family values because families rooted in family values are good?

A good family is one that is a sound basic component for a society that has minimal poverty, crime, and sin. I believe that family values make good families that make good building blocks for good societies. The family values are not an end in and of themselves.

Garbage families are the basic building blocks of garbage societies. There is a lot more to family values than just children being born by a married couple or adopted by a married couple. I came up with at least 19 other values. You can probably come up with a few more if you try.

Why do there need to be familial obligations? Why should I treat my family differently than anyone else?

Because it's harder to get rid of them.

My point is that a proper and good families are rooted in family values. It is like car design. Any fool company can design a car but only well designed cars are well designed cars.
Then that's an entirely different point your making from the one in your post above. It would be utterly bizarre to say, as you did, that only familial units consisting of a man and a woman who are married could be understood as a family; as there are millions of families consisting of men and women who aren't married, separated parents, two women, two men, grandparents, and many, many other arrangements.

Now, you can go on to contend that only families consisting of a man and a woman who are married are 'well designed' families, but that, again, would be foolishness. All we have to do is look at those stable, loving and well-functioning families who don't conform to a man and a woman who are married.

A good family is one that is a sound basic component for a society that has minimal poverty, crime, and sin. I believe that family values make good families that make good building blocks for good societies. The family values are not an end in and of themselves.

Garbage families are the basic building blocks of garbage societies. There is a lot more to family values than just children being born by a married couple or adopted by a married couple. I came up with at least 19 other values. You can probably come up with a few more if you try.

I have no interest in making a list of family values. If the people in any family are healthy and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future then that's all they need. No need for honour, no need for marriage, no need for two parents, one male and one female, no religious overtones. If you think that your set of family values alone can achieve this then it will have some value. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary set of rules.

If they actually cared about family values, they'd be trying to ban divorce.

It's just an excuse to bash 'teh icky ebil gayz"

If they actually cared about family values, they'd be trying to ban divorce.

It's just an excuse to bash 'teh icky ebil gayz"

Don't give them any ideas.

Nobody can say that gays are meant to be parents as some kind of natural right because they were not given the means to do so naturally. I see nothing wrong with recognizing this natural law by saying that we as a society shall not do an end run around it by convention and or technology.

Point one: Gay people still have reproductive organs. Ergo, they were "given" the means to reproduce naturally.

Point two: So do you also see nothing wrong with recognizing the "natural law" that, say, near-sighted people cannot naturally see very well, and therefore deciding that we as a society should not do an "end run" around that by letting them wear eyeglasses? If not, why not?

Unless people are pulling these 'family values' out of their asses, I don't see how.

No, I don't think a gay family would destroy a vague term like 'family values'.

Don't give them any ideas.

Don't worry. The Republicans will never try to ban divorce. They use the institution far too much for that.

Don't worry. The Republicans will never try to ban divorce. They use the institution far too much for that.

Well they seem fond of prostitutes, but they certainly aren't going to lift the ban on that.

"and here comes your presidential cheerleader now
so disturbed by the marriages in my home town
that he's got to take the tip top law in the land down
scribble on it: "I hate homos, big bad frown."
put it back up, be like "what? it's better!
y'all were with me a second ago
when I said that marriage was threatened
and it was! under siege by these villains
can you believe they wanted to gang up and have children?
there would be an army of them, teeming and thronging
tempting every American to give in to forbidden longing"
- I Heart Fags, MC Frontalot

Being gay lets you see forms of beauty that others don't. If Michelangelo had been hetero, he would have painted the Sistine Chapel with a roller.

Got some proof for that, and regardless even if you are a hetro male you can still agree that another male body is something to admire even if you aren't attracted to it.

Cooked food isn't natural, should we outlaw that as well?

Cooked food is natural, it all the preservatives and artificial enhancers that isn't natural along with genetic food and yes I think genetic enhanced food should be banned. Well maybe not but I don't want to eat the stuff when I eat I want natural food which is why I no longer do my food shopping at major supermarkets.

Hahaha. Gays are destroying family values? No, more like apathy and isolation within our own homes.

and regardless even if you are a hetro male you can still agree that another male body is something to admire even if you aren't attracted to it.

But sexual attraction helps.

It's no accident that cultures that respected the form of the male body--like the ancient Greeks--also were relatively tolerant of male same-sex relationships.

That is a logical conclusion. Exposure to ideas makes people more tolerant to them over time.

Nobody can say that gays are meant to be parents as some kind of natural right because they were not given the means to do so naturally.

"Meant"? The "ends" of nature--insofar as they can even be called "ends"--are irrelevant to morality. (Furthermore, it has been argued that the evolutionary role of homosexuality is to serve precisely this role, additional caretakers to prevent against the starvation and death of overpopulation.)

I see nothing wrong with recognizing this natural law by saying that we as a society shall not do an end run around it by convention and or technology.

As if we didn't do that all the time in a whole variety of other respects....

Well they seem fond of prostitutes, but they certainly aren't going to lift the ban on that.

Yes, that's true. But really now, republicans aren't going to outlaw divorce. Why would they ban a practice that lets them dump off their old woman and get a new one legally? No, they may be hypocrites, but they're not (all) that stupid.

Freedonia, they are in our society, right? They know what is good and bad, and the social laws, right? A job of the parent is to socialize their children and gays can do that just as well as heterosexuals. Just because they dont have the natural equipment doesnt mean crap in that arena.

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to). Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?

Seeing or procreating are neither good or bad. They simply are aspects of the natural being, and are sometimes not present in others. What's your point? That because you have the capability to do something, you must constantly use it?

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to).

You mean, "you no longer want to have sex with the opposite sex"? Not for pleasure, no. But if you want to procreate, there's nothing stopping you.

Hell, this argument could be reversed: same-sex intercourse is natural birth control. How awful for poor straight people, who only want to have sex with people they can procreate with.... ;)

You mean, "you no longer want to have sex with the opposite sex"? Not for pleasure, no. But if you want to procreate, there's nothing stopping you.

I don't know I know a few gay guys and they say having sex with a women for them is wrong, shouldn't be done and makes them feel sick to the stomach.

Then that's an entirely different point your making from the one in your post above. It would be utterly bizarre to say, as you did, that only familial units consisting of a man and a woman who are married could be understood as a family; as there are millions of families consisting of men and women who aren't married, separated parents, two women, two men, grandparents, and many, many other arrangements.

Now, you can go on to contend that only families consisting of a man and a woman who are married are 'well designed' families, but that, again, would be foolishness. All we have to do is look at those stable, loving and well-functioning families who don't conform to a man and a woman who are married.

No but this is too narrow a view of family. It is too centered on the nuclear family. I think that we must look at the big picture of the family across time. It is sort of like black culture. If you have a strong history of generations of solid families with solid family values reinforcded by intergenerational commitments to preserving and promoting good family values as a basis for the family, you are going to have a strong community. If you do not then you get garbage families and garbage societies. That is the point of family values.

It is sort of like black culture.

You don't know anything about black culture, do you?

If they actually cared about family values, they'd be trying to ban divorce.

It's just an excuse to bash 'teh icky ebil gayz"

Divorce is potentially an awful attack on the family, particularly where there are children involved and the divorce is motivated by something other than family honor. Who says that the proponents of divorce reform are not family values folks?

A divorce can be a defense fo family honor when it is motivated to protect the children from abuse related troubles for example.

Freedonia, they are in our society, right? They know what is good and bad, and the social laws, right? A job of the parent is to socialize their children and gays can do that just as well as heterosexuals. Just because they dont have the natural equipment doesnt mean crap in that arena.

No, I do not believe so because of the importance of marriage in creating strong families. I am not saying that a homosexual has no role in the family but they do have a reduced one.

family honor

You want to define family honor for me and show me that its important (and that it even exists)? Or is it just some fun new buzzword you came up with?

No, I do not believe so because of the importance of marriage in creating strong families. I am not saying that a homosexual has no role in the family but they do have a reduced one.
In what, The Family (with a capital F)? A queer (like any other person) has quite a substantial role to play in a family which he or she makes.

I think gay marriage is great

i mean anyone should be able to marry who they want

in fact i think everyone should try to be gay

and then our children could be.......

oh, wait.

we couldn't have children

you see, homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

MY GOD EVERYONE, IT ISN'T NATURAL!

Wait, stop what you're doing. Throw homosexuals on the "Not-natural" fire, along with your houses, clothes, cars, TVs, computers, and anything else made by human hands.

What you are arguing with is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Nature, the erroneous statement that because X is natural, X is good; or the opposite.

If you fail to acknowledge your flawed reasoning still, ever seen to male horses going at it? I have! I think you'll find that it occurs in nature (bonobo apes, anyone?) and is, therefore, undeniably natural. Any farmer, zookeeper, zoologist, veterinary surgeon, etc. will be able to tell you that homosexuality among non-human animals exists.

You tried to use Reason around a Bible Nut...

I learned my lesson about that a long time ago, lol...

Its never pretty...Take it from someone who lives in the "Bible Belt".....I really hate that label...

It's a shame decent people like presumably yourself need to live in such places. Is it as bad as it's made out to be? Probably not...

No, I do not believe so because of the importance of marriage in creating strong families. I am not saying that a homosexual has no role in the family but they do have a reduced one.

How, exactly, is that? Why is it assumed that two people of different genders are able to raise a child, while two people of the same gender aren't? Regardless of who you are, it's still possible that you're a terrible person and won't raise a child right, or a very good one who will. It really is a fairly huge assumption to say "Male + Female = Healthy, normal child; Male + Male = Confused criminal"

I never understood this argument. Is the objective of mankind to devolve back into apes, or to evolve further away from an animalisitic state?

The argument is that it is natural, regardless of what people say. Normally it's acknowledged by those using this argument that it's naturalistic fallacy to claim that X is good because it is natural, anyway. They're just saying "Even if what you were saying had logical validity, it would still be empirically incorrect".

No, I do not believe so because of the importance of marriage in creating strong families. I am not saying that a homosexual has no role in the family but they do have a reduced one.

Why? What does who they go to bed with have to do with their children?

The argument is that it is natural, regardless of what people say. Normally it's acknowledged by those using this argument that it's naturalistic fallacy to claim that X is good because it is natural, anyway. They're just saying "Even if what you were saying had logical validity, it would still be empirically incorrect".
The thing being of course that something being natural just means "something works given the constraints of our natural existence". Humans have to do certain things because that's how we evolved biologically. Trying to hunt things by running them down and biting them in the neck is unnatural for humans, because if you tried it in a state of nature you'd find that it probably won't work.

Thus having gay sex to produce children is unnatural. Having gay sex for fun or because you love someone serves a different purpose, and therefore isn't unnatural at all. We could live without any society, community and government, in the wild, and we could have gay sex for fun and it would still serve its purpose.

"Family Values" have been dead since the 50s. :rolleyes:

That's because we realized at the end of the 50s that it was all so faked.

Please don't tell me you still believe that evolution works by species rather than by individual?I thought evolution worked by genes (mostly), rather than individual. Seeing as an individual has nothing to gain from it.

Cooked food is naturalIt grows on trees now, does it?
Cooking food is not natural, no animal or plant or other organism besides humans cooks its food.

Cooked food is natural, it all the preservatives and artificial enhancers that isn't natural along with genetic food and yes I think genetic enhanced food should be banned. Well maybe not but I don't want to eat the stuff when I eat I want natural food which is why I no longer do my food shopping at major supermarkets.

Really? How much cooked food occurs in nature? How many animals eat the majority of their food cooked and processed?

As for GM food, I've got no major problem with it, it's just a different way of breeding plants. That's been going on for millenia in indirect form. What I do have a problem with is biotech companies trademarking foods and charging an arm and a leg for them. That's just wrong.

Divorce is potentially an awful attack on the family, particularly where there are children involved and the divorce is motivated by something other than family honor. Who says that the proponents of divorce reform are not family values folks?

A divorce can be a defense fo family honor when it is motivated to protect the children from abuse related troubles for example.

As someone who's sanity and family life was saved by her parents divorcing, let me just tell you : This is the kind of uninformed, mindless bullshit that is destroying families by forcing people who don't get on to stick together.
Children DO NOT profit from situations like this. At all. Ever.

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married. These values are timeless. Ok here I go about family values.

1. Family begins with a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children are a stain on a family's honor and are not a great way to bring children into this world. If you are gay or are not in a married relationship you are still a member of the family but are not in a position to start a new branch of the family."Family honor" has gone out of fashion in the west ever since the Church took marriage out of the hands of the family, making it a union of man and woman rather than of the two families they belong two. In doing so the basis for marriage shifted from convenience to love; so a same-sex marriage between two people that love eachother is the perfect extension of this.

2. Mom and Dad need to communicate with each other.
3. Mom and Dad need to be honest with each other.
4. Mom and Dad need to be honest with the children and communicate with them.Why bias these to Moms and Dads? why not just say "family members should communicate honestly with eachother"?

7. No family member must ever abuse another family member.No human being should ever abuse another; why is this particularly a family value, rather than a human value?

8. No family member shall dishonor the family (whatever that means is often a social variable)Why this "honor" again? Especially when it's left explicitly unspecified. "A family should value X, for some value of X".

10. Raising children in poverty is child neglect. If you are not economically ready to provide for a child you are not ready for children.So poor people shouldn't have children? And who gets to decide what the limit is? And what if you had a brilliantly well-paid job and lose it, unable to gain other employment?

11. Adopting out or abortion is a family member's sole decision. Failure to do either when required by circumstances is a stain on the family's honor.Sole decision? What about that communication from before? Or that "Authority" below?" Seems a bit inconsistent; and god only knows why that "honor" keeps creeping in.

15. Children must honor their parents. This does not always require something akin to filial piety. Each family member must honor their parents in their own way.Is this unconditional? If the parents don't live up to these family values and abuse the children and cheat on eachother and whatnot; should the children still "honor" them?
Personally, I'd say get the hell out of there and take your siblings with you. People have to earn respect (or at least earn to keep it), and parents are no different.

17. All theistic family members must honor the Lord.Why is this a family value? And if you don't honor god, doesn't that already make you an atheist? So what does this even say?

18. The natural beauty of the Earth and biodiversity must be maintained for all of the future generations of every living beiong on Earth as we are all members of the Earthling family on a basic level.Oh come on; seriously. Sneaking in the word 'family' does not make this a family value.

19. Familial honor must be defended. However, justice is tantamount.Defend family honor how? Kill your daughter if she has sex out of wedlock? (As some do in some countries.)
What's with this honor fixation anyway?
And justice is a universal human value, not particularly a family value.

20. Families must have leadership.Why can't it be a democracy? Must the man rule the family? Or the woman?


And how many of these really depend on a union between man and woman? Only the first, and then only because that's how you want to define marriage. So in short, family values have nothing to worry about from same-sex marriages. Quite the contrary in fact, we'll have more stable families when we can add gay families to the bunch.

I thought evolution worked by genes (mostly), rather than individual. Seeing as an individual has nothing to gain from it.


Individuals can be considered "survival machines" for genes. ;)

I think I could write a long post about family values and the largely gay NS general crowd would focus 99% of their attention on the part that says that families are started by a man and a woman who are married. These values are timeless. Ok here I go about family values.Largely gay NS general crowd?... *looks around* ....I don't see many more gay people by percentage than you'd find anywhere else. I'm straight, so are a majority of posters here. Homophobes seem to believe that anyone who defends gay/lesbian rights must be homosexual. Can't seem to wrap their narrow minds around the concept of support for a lifestyle you don't actually practice, just because it's the right thing to do.

1. Family begins with a man and a woman who are married. Illegitimate children are a stain on a family's honor and are not a great way to bring children into this world. If you are gay or are not in a married relationship you are still a member of the family but are not in a position to start a new branch of the family.Illigitamate children are a stain on a family's honor?....Stuck in the victorian era are we? My friend Claire's family started when her and her partner adopted a child. Since that was before the recent ruling they weren't married. I doubt there's any stain on their honor from taking in a five year old neglected and taken from his drug abusing male and female biological parents. My five children were all born out of wedlock... I sure don't feel 'stained' and neither do my children. Who are you to say who can start a branch of a family. History says very differently... just examine any royal bloodline if you want an example of just how far from your 'ideal' reality is.

2. Mom and Dad need to communicate with each other.

3. Mom and Dad need to be honest with each other.

4. Mom and Dad need to be honest with the children and communicate with them.Agree with these, only sometimes it's Dad and Dad or Mom and Mom. And what about single parent families? Over half of marraiges (the straight ones) end in divorce. People die, etc...Does not having two parents disqualify you from being a family?

5. The children are the number one priority. If you are not ready to make them the number one priority, then you are not ready to have children.This one's gonna have direct conflict with number 9 below. Seriously, having children doesn't mean you give up all your dreams and ambitions. Any parents basic responsibility is to themselves, for the simple reason if they don't take care of themselves they risk not being physically or emotionally able to take care of their children. It's sort of like the emergency instructions they give you on planes, place the oxygen mask on yourself first then your child, because if you try to take care of them first and pass out from lack of oxygen fumbling with their mask, you both die.

6. The children must be disciplined if they need it. Anything less is child neglect and stains the honor of the family.Again with the honor crap. How about healthy and happy? Check your history, some nasty crap has been done in the name of 'Honor'.
Blood fueds, honor killings, genocide...not the kind of things I want to call family values.

7. No family member must ever abuse another family member.Ok

8. No family member shall dishonor the family (whatever that means is often a social variable):rolleyes:Honor crap again... *sigh* 'Honor' is about perception and status... it has nothing to do with healthy, happy, functional people and relationships and usually gets in the way of such.

9. Raising spoiled children is child neglect. See Rule 5.Spoiled children are not desirable and usually result in a degree of disfunction, but I'm sorry, you don't get to rewrite the definition of neglect.

10. Raising children in poverty is child neglect. If you are not economically ready to provide for a child you are not ready for children.Sorry, you also don't get to make reproduction an elitist exclusivity. Since a great many people on this planet live below what we call the poverty level their whole lives, this is an unrealistic statement.

11. Adopting out or abortion is a family member's sole decision. Failure to do either when required by circumstances is a stain on the family's honor.See... here you're starting to slide into the distasteful infringement on idividual rights all in the name of 'honor'. You give lip service individual choice, but then add the caveat about 'failure....when required'... not that it's required to make the family healthier, happier of functional but to keep some outside perception or status. Again, honor is not a family value.

12. Parents may obligate children to do for their children as done onto them by their parents. An example is paying college education expenses.Sorry, you can't trump individual rights and freewill with obligation in the name of family values. Practicality is the decider in most situations not obligation.

13. Parents must do everything possible to encourage the moral and physical health of their children.OK, except I prefer the term ethical over moral and you need to add emotional health.

14. Family members should not withold reasonable requests for assistance from other family members.Not condusive to functionality in all situations. Strict adherence to such a policy is likely to enable disfuction and inappropriate dependence. A family's goal should be to produce independent succesful individuals.

15. Children must honor their parents. This does not always require something akin to filial piety. Each family member must honor their parents in their own way.Again honor... What about respect, love and compassion?

16. All family pets and other animals must be treated humanely.Do we really have to include this as a family value. Shouldn't this be a simple human value? Isn't that what 'humane' means?

17. All theistic family members must honor the Lord.Do we really have to bring religion into it? And Judeo/Christian religion at that? Family values should be exclusive of all religions.

18. The natural beauty of the Earth and biodiversity must be maintained for all of the future generations of every living beiong on Earth as we are all members of the Earthling family on a basic level.Yeah, we need to preserve the planet for future generations, but again this is really a general human concept not something exclusive for family groups.

19. Familial honor must be defended. However, justice is tantamount.Honor does not equal justice in any way. In fact they usually end up being exclusive of each other. Justice is paramount. Defending honor, especialy family honor is folly.

20. Families must have leadership.True, but that leadership can take many forms, it does not have to be a patriarchy.

Most of your list of values are not 'timeless', they are outdated and for good reason. True family values promote emotional and physical well being, fuctionality, happiness and success. Status, perception and mindless perpetuation have no place in family values.

well in the first place "family values" is an oxymoron. so i could care less about anything, whatever it might be, that could supposedly be "destroying" them.

and maybe almost wish more power to (almost) whatever it might be.

but if anything is destroying anything, it is blind emotional attatchment to fanatacism in virtually EVERY form, and not just all varieties of racial and religeous bias, but idiological and economic and prefering red dragons to blue ones to green ones, or whatever people come up with to be fanatical about.

the only real possitive value is the avoidance of causing suffering, and the overriding importance to everything, of the kind of world we all have to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

No, I do not believe so because of the importance of marriage in creating strong families. I am not saying that a homosexual has no role in the family but they do have a reduced one.
You keep saying this, or some permutation of it, but you still haven't said why.

What is it that a gay person is unable to do, which a straight person is able to do?

What is it that I, as a female person, am incapable of doing for my family, which a male person will be able to do by virtue of his maleness?

Folks seem to think this is all about homophobia, but I'm starting to strongly doubt that. I think it's about sexism. It's about the fact that some people believe in gender roles to such a degree that they think a female person is innately incapable of performing certain familial functions, while a male person is innately incapable of performing others. I'm interested to see if GF will actually put up and state, specifically, what he thinks the deficiencies of the different genders are.

What is it that I, as a female person, am incapable of doing for my family, which a male person will be able to do by virtue of his maleness?Playing devil's advocate here: Provide a male role model.

Being blind prevents you from seeing, being homosexual prevents you from procreating (in so far as you no longer want to).

I wish! I cannot begin to tell you how delighted I would be if I found out that being non-straight was a guaranteed contraceptive.

Sadly, from personal experience, I can assure you this is not the case.


Is anyone willing to argue that seeing or procreating are bad?
I'm absolutely prepared to argue that procreating is bad for me! I know many other people who share my feelings. Most of them are straight, actually, though some are gay.

Lots of people don't want to procreate. Indeed, lots of people spend a great deal of time and effort making sure they don't procreate.

Meanwhile, I don't know of anybody who intentionally blinded themselves.

Meanwhile, I don't know of anybody who intentionally blinded themselves.

Oedipus of Thebes.

I agree, children are horrible. Whiny little creatures...
That sounds heartless, and they can be cute when you just see them in passing, but living with one? *shudder*

No but this is too narrow a view of family. It is too centered on the nuclear family. I think that we must look at the big picture of the family across time.
Um, exactly the advice I'd give you.

Oedipus of Thebes.
To be fair, the dude wasn't in a sound frame of mind...

Playing devil's advocate here: Provide a male role model.
Which, again, begs the question:

Why does a child need a male role model?

I believe children need GOOD role models. The only reason kids would need gendered role models is if sexism is assumed to begin with.

And, of course, even if we want to assume that a kid does need gendered role models, why on Earth would I be unable to provide a child with a male role model? My father is awesome. So's my brother. I have countless wonderful male friends, all of whom would make superb role models. I'm sure any child of mine would have male teachers and mentors, just as I did.

I think we all know that simply being male doesn't make a guy a good role model. Is a kid better off with a drunk, abusive father being her "male role model"? When somebody talks about a child needing a male role model, they mean a POSITIVE male role model, not just any person with a dick. So, clearly, maleness alone does NOT guarantee that a person would be able to provide their child with a good male role model.

Oedipus of Thebes.

Touche.


I agree, children are horrible. Whiny little creatures...
That sounds heartless, and they can be cute when you just see them in passing, but living with one? *shudder*
My feelings about children are about the same as my feelings about puppies:

Cute, fun to play with, but at the end of the day I don't want to be the one cleaning up its messes.

Which, again, begs the question:

Why does a child need a male role model?

I believe children need GOOD role models. The only reason kids would need gendered role models is if sexism is assumed to begin with.

And, of course, even if we want to assume that a kid does need gendered role models, why on Earth would I be unable to provide a child with a male role model? My father is awesome. So's my brother. I have countless wonderful male friends, all of whom would make superb role models. I'm sure any child of mine would have male teachers and mentors, just as I did.

I think we all know that simply being male doesn't make a guy a good role model. Is a kid better off with a drunk, abusive father being her "male role model"? When somebody talks about a child needing a male role model, they mean a POSITIVE male role model, not just any person with a dick. So, clearly, maleness alone does NOT guarantee that a person would be able to provide their child with a good male role model.

Idealy though a child should have good male and female role models yes?

Idealy though a child should have good male and female role models yes?
Yes, in the same way a child needs a good role model in many, many areas of life.

But that role model doesn't necessarily need to come from inside the immediate family.

Yes, in the same way a child needs a good role model in many, many areas of life.

But that role model doesn't necessarily need to come from inside the immediate family.

Ohh I agree. But good if they do huh.

Which, again, begs the question:

Why does a child need a male role model?
The same reason why a child also needs a female role model.



I believe children need GOOD role models. The only reason kids would need gendered role models is if sexism is assumed to begin with.
Whether you like it or not, the differences between male and female go beyond merely physical.

I believe children need good role models FROM BOTH GENDERS. And I think Laerod wasn't implying that female role models are unimportant.


And, of course, even if we want to assume that a kid does need gendered role models, why on Earth would I be unable to provide a child with a male role model? My father is awesome. So's my brother. I have countless wonderful male friends, all of whom would make superb role models. I'm sure any child of mine would have male teachers and mentors, just as I did.
Laerod wasn't saying you need a husband. He was just saying that you, as a female, can't personally provide as a male role model just because...you're female.


I think we all know that simply being male doesn't make a guy a good role model. Is a kid better off with a drunk, abusive father being her "male role model"? When somebody talks about a child needing a male role model, they mean a POSITIVE male role model, not just any person with a dick. So, clearly, maleness alone does NOT guarantee that a person would be able to provide their child with a good male role model.
That's pushing it a bit far - a little straw man. Laerod says "a female can't personally be a male role model", and you attack his/her viewpoint as if he was saying "all males can be good male role models". That wasn't what he was saying.

Idealy though a child should have good male and female role models yes?

Not obviously so. I don't remember having any role models at all.

Idealy though a child should have good male and female role models yes?
Ideally it wouldn't matter.

Does a child need a good black role model and white role model and Latino role model and Tibetan role model? What about a handicapped role model? A genius role model and a mentally disabled role model?

Kids need good role models, period. In a perfect world, every single adult would be a good role model.

In the world we have, it would be best if we stopped pretending like kids needed somebody with a certain set of genitals to model certain values for them.

The same reason why a child also needs a female role model.

Which is?


Whether you like it or not, the differences between male and female go beyond merely physical.

Which are?

Please note, I'm not asking for general trends (i.e. "Women tend to be..."). I want to know, specifically, what differences MUST, 100% of the time, be linked to physical sex.


I believe children need good role models FROM BOTH GENDERS. And I think Laerod wasn't implying that female role models are unimportant.

Never claimed that was the case.


Laerod wasn't saying you need a husband. He was just saying that you, as a female, can't personally provide as a male role model just because...you're female.

And, if you'll read my post, you'll note that that really just begged the question.


That's pushing it a bit far - a little straw man. Laerod says "a female can't personally be a male role model", and you attack his/her viewpoint as if he was saying "all males can be good male role models". That wasn't what he was saying.
No, it's not what he was saying. It's what I was saying.

My question, if you'll check, was, "What am I innately unable to do, that a male person is innately able to do?"

If a male person is NOT innately able to provide a good male role model, then "provide a good male role model" isn't an answer to my question.

Ohh I agree. But good if they do huh.
It depends on what you/I mean by 'immediate family'.

I think it's good for children to have positive role models for both sexes (as well as positive role models in all number of areas, including those as amorphous as 'charity', 'free thinking' or even 'fun'), but I don't see why that role model be one of the child's designated guardians.

As Bottle mentions, grandfathers, uncles, friends, etc., can all be good male role models, and I find it hard to accept that, for example, the child of a lesbian couple would be completely isolated from the male sex (and thus male role models).

Not obviously so. I don't remember having any role models at all.

Ohh you poor sod.

Sometimes I wonder why I keep communicating with Southern Baptists, especially since time after time again, they prove their stupidity. Anyways, I was talking to one, and I thought he was a Libertarian, he was Anti-Bush, didn't support the Iraq War, and was a Ron Paul supporter. However, when I brought up the fact that the religious right was controlling the GOP and Bush's attempt to ban Gay Marriage in 2004 was not only a political move, but to appease the Religious Right in his party. He asked me if I supported gay marriage, I said yes, gays and lesbian should have the same rights as the rest of us. Apparently he thought that gay marriage would destroy "family values".

Where the Hell does the notion that "Family values" will be destroyed by gay marriage? I know it's from the GOP's scare tactic handbook, but honestly, if a gay couple move in next door to you, and they adopt a child or if their lesbian, one of them give birth, is that really going to affect your own personal "family values"? If the Right Wing nuts and Religious Fundies want to know what's really destroying "Family values", I can point to several, and I mean several dysfunctional families and broken homes that have destroyed the so called "Family values" more than any married gay couple ever could've.

I'm not saying that gays and lesbian won't have dysfunctional families or broken home of their own, but let's be honest, the simple fact that they are married won't ruin the obsolete notion of "family values" when straight families that has abusive parents, cheating parents, neglectful parents, etc. have done enough damage to this archaic notion.

So, will/do gay family ruin "family values", is there's such thing as "family values" anymore, and which would do more damage, a gay couple or a dysfunctional family, broken home?

/soapbox

Has there been any research on the long-term effects of being raised in a family with gay parents?
I think 'family values' went out the window a LONG time ago. And it had nothing to do with sexuality. If gay people want to get married and have kids let them, unless there is evidence that it is MORE harmful than being raised by a hetro couple.
I'd like to know why the family unit has collapsed so rapidly though.

Which is?
A balanced view and interaction of the sexes.


Which are?

Please note, I'm not asking for general trends (i.e. "Women tend to be..."). I want to know, specifically, what differences MUST, 100% of the time, be linked to physical sex.
Well, I can't tell you exactly what they are, but society endows upon us specific differences between male and female. Nothing is 100% linked to physical sex, but my guess would be there are certain traits that are overwhelmingly "masculine" and others which are overwhelmingly "feminine". Of course there are exceptions but these are rare, so as a general theory I propose that in a child's life - and I go beyond simply "male" and "female" here - there needs to be one fatherly figurely and one motherly figure.


Never claimed that was the case.
Cool. Just had the impression you were.


And, if you'll read my post, you'll note that that really just begged the question.
Fine. We can agree on this.


No, dear, that's what I was saying.

My question, if you'll check, was, "What am I innately unable to do, that a male person is innately able to do?"

On average, females are unable to think, feel, and behave naturally like a physical man, and vice versa.


If a male person is NOT innately able to provide a good male role model, then "provide a male role model" isn't an answer to my question."Good" and "male" must coexist to provide a "good, male role model". It is impossible to create a "good male role model" with a female. Nobody is innately able to be a good role model. That is an acquired talent. But being male - or female - will give you a better chance to being a good male - or female - role model.

I think we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes a "good role model" and hence will have to agree to disagree.

Has there been any research on the long-term effects of being raised in a family with gay parents?

Yes. Lots.


I'd like to know why the family unit has collapsed so rapidly though.
Short answer: it hasn't.

The human family has taken many forms throughout history and across cultures. The current form of the "normal" family is not identical to what was seen 100 years ago, but so what? It's different. Doesn't make it broken. :D

Ideally it wouldn't matter.

Does a child need a good black role model and white role model and Latino role model and Tibetan role model? What about a handicapped role model? A genius role model and a mentally disabled role model?

Kids need good role models, period. In a perfect world, every single adult would be a good role model.

In the world we have, it would be best if we stopped pretending like kids needed somebody with a certain set of genitals to model certain values for them.


Hah suppries supprise Bottle we diagree!

Naa there are differances between genders, a boy needs a good male role model, prefrably his father.

I live in London where we have a distinct lack of father figures for our black youth, and our black communites are calling out for black fathers to be there for their kids, as over the last 20 years or so it has not done these children, and now men and young adults any good at all.

That is actual comminties having seen what the lack of a male role model(good or bad) has caused over the last 20 years, and calling for it to change.

It depends on what you/I mean by 'immediate family'.

I think it's good for children to have positive role models for both sexes (as well as positive role models in all number of areas, including those as amorphous as 'charity', 'free thinking' or even 'fun'), but I don't see why that role model be one of the child's designated guardians.

As Bottle mentions, grandfathers, uncles, friends, etc., can all be good male role models, and I find it hard to accept that, for example, the child of a lesbian couple would be completely isolated from the male sex (and thus male role models).

Imidiate family includes siblings, uncles, aunties, grandperants and peranst in my book.

A balanced view of the sexes.

Which cannot be provided by two female parents because...?


Well, I can't tell you exactly what they are, but society endows upon us specific differences between male and female.

Society also endows upon us specific differences between blacks and whites. Does this mean you also believe that only mixed-race couples can provide appropriate role modeling for kids?


Nothing is 100% linked to physical sex, but my guess would be there are certain traits that are overwhelmingly "masculine" and others which are overwhelmingly "feminine".

Such as?

You know what? It doesn't matter. Because you yourself admit it's not 100%. So there could easily be a male who doesn't show a "masculine" trait, while a female could show that trait. Thus, if a kid happened to get that male role model for a father, the kid wouldn't get the "male" role modeling that is needed! AMG!!

If what you are worried about is making sure that certain TRAITS are modeled, then you should be advocating that people with those traits be the role models.


Of course there are exceptions but these are rare, so as a general theory I propose that in a child's life - and I go beyond simply "male" and "female" here - there needs to be one fatherly figurely and one motherly figure.

Why not two people who are each half-motherly and half-fatherly? Why not five motherly's and five fatherly's?

What's with this two-by-two dichotomy thing?

And can you be specific? If you feel this strongly about this, surely you will have specific traits in mind. What are the specific traits that males bring as role models which females do not, and vice versa?



On average, females are unable to think, feel, and behave naturally like a physical man, and vice versa.

Be. More. Specific.


"Good" and "male" must coexist to provide a "good, male role model". It is impossible to create a "good male role model" with a female.

Already addressed.


I think we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes a "good role model" and hence will have to agree to disagree.
Frankly, I don't have the least idea what you think a good role model is, since the only criterion you've shared so far is that you think they've got to have a particular body type.

Hah suppries supprise Bottle we diagree!

Naa there are differances between genders, a boy needs a good male role model, prefrably his father.

My aunt would like to slap you about now, and I'm guessing her four sons would as well. :)


I live in London where we have a distinct lack of father figures for our black youth, and our black communites are calling out for black fathers to be there for their kids, as over the last 20 years or so it has not done these children, and now men and young adults any good at all.

I'm sure that poverty has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, and if only their mothers could have been married off it would have solved all the difficulties...


That is actual comminties having seen what the lack of a male role model(good or bad) has caused over the last 20 years, and calling for it to change.
This really is too much of a hijack for the thread. There's so many class issues, race issues, and sexist issues wrapped up in this that it can't fit in this thread.

Yes. Lots.


Short answer: it hasn't.

The human family has taken many forms throughout history and across cultures. The current form of the "normal" family is not identical to what was seen 100 years ago, but so what? It's different. Doesn't make it broken. :D

Okay sweet. Something I can look into, that'd be interesting.

But if people are more broken, then wouldn't that change in families over the past 100 years be a contributor? Seeing as depression has risen and satisfaction dropped in the past 50 years?

Which cannot be provided by two female parents because...?


Society also endows upon us specific differences between blacks and whites. Does this mean you also believe that only mixed-race couples can provide appropriate role modeling for kids?


Such as?

You know what? It doesn't matter. Because you yourself admit it's not 100%. So there could easily be a male who doesn't show a "masculine" trait, while a female could show that trait. Thus, if a kid happened to get that male role model for a father, the kid wouldn't get the "male" role modeling that is needed! AMG!!

If what you are worried about is making sure that certain TRAITS are modeled, then you should be advocating that people with those traits be the role models.


Why not two people who are each half-motherly and half-fatherly? Why not five motherly's and five fatherly's?

What's with this two-by-two dichotomy thing?

And can you be specific? If you feel this strongly about this, surely you will have specific traits in mind. What are the specific traits that males bring as role models which females do not, and vice versa?



Be. More. Specific.


Already addressed.


Frankly, I don't have the least idea what you think a good role model is, since the only criterion you've shared so far is that you think they've got to have a particular body type.

For example - a good father provides strong leadership in the family and a good mother provides balance / arbitration.

For example - a good father provides strong leadership in the family and a good mother provides balance / arbitration.

Prove a woman can't provide strong leadership and a man balance and/or arbitration.

Prove a woman can't provide strong leadership and a man balance and/or arbitration.

The difference isn't about "leadership" or "arbitration". The difference is "male leadership" and "female arbitration". I believe that males are naturally and socially disposed to provide leadership while females are naturally and socially disposed to provide arbitration. Females can provide leadership and males can provide arbitration, but it's not the same as male leadership and female arbitration.

Before you bludgeon me for being sexist or militant I declare that this is a personal viewpoint and I by no means plan or even imagine to impose it on other people. You asked for my opinion and I have given it. It is that simple. You either agree or disagree.

A stable family environment, with sufficient money, and sufficiently competent, concerned parents is of far greater merit than simply having a daddy and mummy. It is little short of pathetic that moralistic, blinkered bible freaks see fit to attempt to impose their subjective, anachronistic views on a world that, for the most part, has no time for them.

Hah suppries supprise Bottle we diagree!

Naa there are differances between genders, a boy needs a good male role model, prefrably his father.

I live in London where we have a distinct lack of father figures for our black youth, and our black communites are calling out for black fathers to be there for their kids, as over the last 20 years or so it has not done these children, and now men and young adults any good at all.

That is actual comminties having seen what the lack of a male role model(good or bad) has caused over the last 20 years, and calling for it to change.

To be honest, I think that a child raised by two women is less likely to turn to crime than one raised by a man and a woman, for the reason that the latter child is more "normal". If both children grow up in a society where the norm is for crime to be seen as glamorous and appealing, then the latter child is more likely, being more normal and better-accepted by a still-intolerant society, to adopt this view; while the former child, who is more likely to be shunned, will become more cerebral and individual and see through that.

However, the cases that you describe are wholly different. You seem to have observed that children with a single parent are more inclined toward crime than those with two in the particular culture you're talking about. You've made the assumption that this is because children with one parent lack a father, and therefore a "good male role model". In doing so, you have overlooked the altogether more plausible reason:
One source of income.
A one-parent family in the type of circumstance that you describe will have more monetary difficulty than a two-parent family. This could lead to the child's one parent suffering from stress and irritability, which could rub off on the child, and leave them with less time to raise their child, as they have to work longer to feed and clothe it. The answer here is not pairing single parents up with "good male role models", but giving them more money so that they can afford nice things and work less hours, leaving them with more time to raise a healthy, happy child.

A stable family environment, with sufficient money, and sufficiently competent, concerned parents is of far greater merit than simply having a daddy and mummy. It is little short of pathetic that moralistic, blinkered bible freaks see fit to attempt to impose their subjective, anachronistic views on a world that, for the most part, has no time for them.

QFT.

A stable family environment, with sufficient money, and sufficiently competent, concerned parents is of far greater merit than simply having a daddy and mummy. It is little short of pathetic that moralistic, blinkered bible freaks see fit to attempt to impose their subjective, anachronistic views on a world that, for the most part, has no time for them.

Hate to burst the bubble, but its every major religion out there that believes homosexuality is immoral. And I don't think religion forces the 'homosexuality is immoral' nearly as much as others endorse homosexuality.
Anyway, not the point of the thread. But its a pet peeve that christianity is singled out for everything.

Ohh you poor sod.

Children need people who will care for them and treat them well, who can and will dedicate time and energy to the task of raising them. I don't see how "role models" have much of anything to do with it... and certainly the sex of the parents is pretty much irrelevant.

Hate to burst the bubble, but its every major religion out there that believes homosexuality is immoral. And I don't think religion forces the 'homosexuality is immoral' nearly as much as others endorse homosexuality.
Anyway, not the point of the thread. But its a pet peeve that christianity is singled out for everything.

By "nearly every religon", you mean "the Abrahamic religions", I think you'll find. If other religions do so, it's because of exposure to Christianity: No ancient people other than the Hebrews had an objection, and indeed in many societies bisexuality and homosexual relationships were very much a normal part of everyday life for most people.

The reason Christianity is singled out is because it's the biggest, and has become a symbol of the Abrahamic faiths, and a symbol of religious intolerance and oppression (e.g. the Crusades, Witch Hunts, Pogroms and Christianisation of pagans in the New World). It is singled out because it is such a huge, omnipresent force and is given so much liberty to do as it wills - though thankfully, not as much as it once had. Other Abrahamic faiths do not have this.

Other Abrahamic faiths do not have this.

See Islam in Muslim countries.

Hate to burst the bubble, but its every major religion out there that believes homosexuality is immoral. And I don't think religion forces the 'homosexuality is immoral' nearly as much as others endorse homosexuality.
Anyway, not the point of the thread. But its a pet peeve that christianity is singled out for everything.

How do you reasonably address "religion" as a single, amorphous entity? Significant religious groups are rather forceful, in a distinctly physical fashion, in opposing homosexuality. Others, commendably are not, but a significant proportion are.

In any case, I'm more than aware that homsexuality is circumscribed by the better part of world religions. It is understandable, given that the major faiths of the world derive their moral precepts from a wholly different, and rather less tolerant, epoch. However, for the purposes of a response to the OP, simply dealing with christianity, and assuming that others would logically follow this, seemed reasonabe=le.

But its a pet peeve that christianity is singled out for everything.
Well, most of us do live in the West, where Christianity has been the dominant organised religion for quite some time. Many people's experience of organised religion will just be that of Christianity, so it should come as no surprise that it is 'singled out'.

Just going to jump in here (sorry to drag up old points, but I read the whole thread before posting).

For example - a good father provides strong leadership in the family and a good mother provides balance / arbitration.
To me, that is a sexist statement that belongs in the fifties (which, as has been mentioned, is where a lot of superficial family values were emphasised and have, consequently, been left).
Why must the father provide leadership, and the mother provide 'balance'? (which I assume here means 'a more open mind' or the opposite of leadership).

your argumant has a falw-Their will never be a margority ho-mo population.
They can have kids- Artifical insemination,adoption.
There kids will probely be staright(thogh their is a high chance thier be gay)
Im not gay myself but im not homophobic. To be honest i go to a faith school.....so im used to bisexuals

There is absolutely no evidence to show that a child raised by, or exposed to, non-straight people will have an increased chance of being non-straight themselves. There is compelling evidence that homosexuality is determined before birth or very early on in life.

More effort = greater energy expenditure
Any excess use of energy resources fails to advance the human race, and advancement of this race must be our primary goal.
I'm guessing you don't visit art galleries often, or think putting man on the moon was a worthwhile achievement (then again, they did spend utterly ridiculous amounts of money on that, with a probably disproportionate benefit *kills off own argument*)

I'm obviously for same-sex marriage :) I believe it has nothing to do with others' 'family values' and is irrelevant to other people's marriages. Also, as (ideally, anyway) with heterosexual marriages, two people only choose to make that lifelong commitment when they love each other, so there's no immoral road of sin and sham there - I would say that most non-straight couples considering marriage would be even more cautious than usual, because of the current social environment/attitudes.

Basically, equal right, please. I can (just) accept that religious sects may have some particular views about marriage being a sacrament between man and woman, or whatever, fine. If your religion genuinely disallows same-sex marriage, we won't bother you, but we would like some sort of recognition/ceremony+legal (etc) rights.

/end overly long post

See Islam in Muslim countries.

There aren't nearly so many. Also, do any of these posters live in Muslim countries? Unlikely. I'm sure atheists in Muslim countries single out Islam.

...in many societies bisexuality and homosexual relationships were very much a normal part of everyday life for most people.


Please substantiate.

As much as we see homosexuals relationship we never had homosexual families in ancient times. They were at least bisexual, because procreation and legitimacy was so important. The "homosexual family" is a very modern concept.

Hate to burst the bubble, but its every major religion out there that believes homosexuality is immoral.

Actually, Christianity has a particular, exceptional problem with homophobia. I'm not talking about passages in holy texts, I'm talking about historic practices and attitudes. The only other religion that comes close is Islam, where the romanticism of (non-physical) same-sex love nevertheless led to an extensive body of homoerotic literature.

Judaism might be a competitor if it weren't for the fact that it simply has never been anywhere near as powerful as the other two.

There aren't nearly so many. Also, do any of these posters live in Muslim countries? Unlikely. I'm sure atheists in Muslim countries single out Islam.

This shows ignorance.

Actually, Christianity has a particular, exceptional problem with homophobia. I'm not talking about passages in holy texts, I'm talking about historic practices and attitudes. The only other religion that comes close is Islam, where the romanticism of (non-physical) same-sex love nevertheless led to an extensive body of homoerotic literature.

Judaism might be a competitor if it weren't for the fact that it simply has never been anywhere near as powerful as the other two.

Iran, for example, still hangs its gays.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7411706.stm

I'd like to know why the family unit has collapsed so rapidly though.

Because it was an artificial construct.

Iran, for example, still hangs its gays.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7411706.stm

All Abrahamic religions are rather homophobe in their approach.

Please substantiate.

As much as we see homosexuals relationship we never had homosexual families in ancient times. They were at least bisexual, because procreation and legitimacy was so important. The "homosexual family" is a very modern concept.

In Ancient Greece, being courted by an older man (pederasty) was considered a part of growing up for boys. Several militaries, including that of Sparta, organised the positions of soldiers by the positions of their lovers: You were likely to fight harder if you knew your actions would save your beloved.

In Rome, it was common and acceptable for a free citizen to penetrate a male slave, though being penetrated was seen as a shameful thing for a free man. Before manhood, this shame did not exist.

In Celtic society, sources suggest that young men may have even been offended if they were not courted by an older man they visited, such was the extent of the regularity of such occurences.

Enough?

This shows ignorance.

Ignorance in what way? There may be Muslim posters here, I am simply stating a recognised fact: People are more likely to use what they know and have experienced as an example than that which is foreign and exotic to them. If asked a fruit, you would most likely say "apple" over "dragonfruit".

As much as we see homosexuals relationship we never had homosexual families in ancient times. They were at least bisexual, because procreation and legitimacy was so important.

Yeah, so? That had nothing to do with their assessment of the comparative merits of homosexuality and heterosexuality... it had to do with the fact that marriage had little connection with love.

Iran, for example, still hangs its gays.

Yeah, and Iran's legal system is far more religious than most Western Christian countries. Apples and oranges.

Gay rights are (relatively) extensive in the West because it is secular, not because it is Christian. Historically, almost the opposite is true.

As much as we see homosexuals relationship we never had homosexual families in ancient times. They were at least bisexual, because procreation and legitimacy was so important.

Yeah, so? That had nothing to do with their assessment of the comparative merits of homosexuality and heterosexuality... it had to do with the fact that marriage had little connection with love.

Also, trust a theist to give an anachronistic example. No, I was merely pointing out that anti-homosexual attitudes are exclusive to Abrahamic faiths and cultures. I was not saying that because the ancients had homosexuality, that makes it a great thing.
The reason there have been no homosexual families until now is because never before has our "need" to procreate been so small, and the nature of marriage is now very different. Many heterosexual couples now actively choose not to have children due to their lifestyles.
Since two men or two women can raise children as well as anyone else, why not let them? Would you rather they spent the rest of the childhood in an orphanage or adoption centre, or were never born at all?

Because it was an artificial construct.

To an extent, yes, but not in the blunt sense you suggest. Insofar as all human society is an abstraction, so too is the family unit. However, it is an element consistent to all societies, unlike many other "artificial constructs" for which you no doubt have an unthinking derision.

To an extent, yes, but not in the blunt sense you suggest. Insofar as all human society is an abstraction, so too is the family unit. However, it is an element consistent to all societies, unlike many other "artificial constructs" for which you no doubt have an unthinking derision.

Not so. Many primitive cultures raise their children communally, the women looking after the babes while the men hunt.

But if people are more broken, then wouldn't that change in families over the past 100 years be a contributor? Seeing as depression has risen and satisfaction dropped in the past 50 years?

More broken than when?
I think you fell for the ole nostalgia trip there.
Humans aren't any more broken than they were 50 years ago. Or 100 years ago. 100 years ago, well over half of mankind had next to no rights whatsoever over their lifes and bodies. Those rights belonged exclusively to affluent, white, adult men. Depression was rampant, only there was no clinical term for it yet.

50 years ago, the situation had changed merely legally. In everyday life, women still would have a hard time doing what THEY wanted, blacks still were regarded as barely more than apes, and children still had to submit to abuse and violence whenever the pater familiaris (or any other adult male or female, for that matter) saw fit.
Depression, again, was rampant. But seeking medical help held so much stigma that most cases still went undiagnosed and untreated.

Looking at the world today, it's not perfect by a long shot, but it sure is one hell of a lot better than it was 100 years or 50 years back. And improving, slowly but surely.

Hate to burst the bubble, but its every major religion out there that believes homosexuality is immoral. And I don't think religion forces the 'homosexuality is immoral' nearly as much as others endorse homosexuality.
Anyway, not the point of the thread. But its a pet peeve that christianity is singled out for everything.

Last time I checked, Hinduism didn't have much of a problem with homosexuality...

More broken than when?
I think you fell for the ole nostalgia trip there.
Humans aren't any more broken than they were 50 years ago. Or 100 years ago. 100 years ago, well over half of mankind had next to no rights whatsoever over their lifes and bodies. Those rights belonged exclusively to affluent, white, adult men. Depression was rampant, only there was no clinical term for it yet.

50 years ago, the situation had changed merely legally. In everyday life, women still would have a hard time doing what THEY wanted, blacks still were regarded as barely more than apes, and children still had to submit to abuse and violence whenever the pater familiaris (or any other adult male or female, for that matter) saw fit.
Depression, again, was rampant. But seeking medical help held so much stigma that most cases still went undiagnosed and untreated.

Looking at the world today, it's not perfect by a long shot, but it sure is one hell of a lot better than it was 100 years or 50 years back. And improving, slowly but surely.

By simplistic statistical and economic qualifications, perhaps. However, if, as you never do, one were to stray into discussing anything more abstract or worthwhile, one encounters rather more muddied waters in which only blind idealism and genuflection to modernity allows for a belief in it's superiority,

In certain aspects (the leeching of character from everywhere in the world by globalised consumerism) it is worse, in others (civil rights) it is far, far better.

To an extent, yes, but not in the blunt sense you suggest. Insofar as all human society is an abstraction, so too is the family unit. However, it is an element consistent to all societies, unlike many other "artificial constructs" for which you no doubt have an unthinking derision.

I assumed that she was talking about the Victorian idea of family - mother, father, children.
That, as a unit, it entirely artificial. Families up until that point would consist of any number of related individuals, usually encompassing more than just 2 generations. The idea that a "normal family" would mean one male and one female adult with a small-ish number of offspring is a 19th century nostalgic idea without much base in reality.

By simplistic statistical and economic qualifications, perhaps. However, if, as you never do, one were to stray into discussing anything more abstract or worthwhile, one encounters rather more muddied waters in which only blind idealism and genuflection to modernity allows for a belief in it's superiority,

Well, feel free to stray then.
Personally, I belief that life for the individual has improved massively, not only where personal choice and freedom is concerned, but also in regards to leisure time, general health and standart of living. I realise that this is first and foremost the case in Western Europe and North America, but it would seem that the rest of the world is catching up fast.

The difference isn't about "leadership" or "arbitration". The difference is "male leadership" and "female arbitration". I believe that males are naturally and socially disposed to provide leadership while females are naturally and socially disposed to provide arbitration. Females can provide leadership and males can provide arbitration, but it's not the same as male leadership and female arbitration.

You can believe it all you want 'til the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. There is zero basis for such conjecture. If you provide evidence to back it up, then maybe your argument would hold water. Right now, it's as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Before you bludgeon me for being sexist or militant I declare that this is a personal viewpoint and I by no means plan or even imagine to impose it on other people. You asked for my opinion and I have given it. It is that simple. You either agree or disagree.

The tone and wording heavily implored a request for valid sources, not a subjective opinion.

You have zero proof that one gender is naturally suited for one role over another. Source, source, source. I don't care if it's your opinion, if I recall, I asked you to prove it, as you used it as an example to another poster's argument.

I assumed that she was talking about the Victorian idea of family - mother, father, children.
That, as a unit, it entirely artificial. Families up until that point would consist of any number of related individuals, usually encompassing more than just 2 generations. The idea that a "normal family" would mean one male and one female adult with a small-ish number of offspring is a 19th century nostalgic idea without much base in reality.

That is correct, however, irrespective of the specific size or extent of the "family" such units are intrinsic to society, and common to all.

That is correct, however, irrespective of the specific size or extent of the "family" such units are intrinsic to society, and common to all.

Why cannot such units be varied in their makeup, as far as gender is concerned, then? Since they can vary in size and extent, why not in this aspect? In many societies in the past and present, the role of men has not been to raise children, and in many other, men have been involved in this process.

That is correct, however, irrespective of the specific size or extent of the "family" such units are intrinsic to society, and common to all.

I never denied that. I didn't make the claim that those units were in the process of disappearing, I rather illustrated how they have never really existed in the claimed form, but have always been adjusting to needs and requirements.

Why cannot such units be varied in their makeup, as far as gender is concerned, then? Since they can vary in size and extent, why not in this aspect? In many societies in the past and present, the role of men has not been to raise children, and in many other, men have been involved in this process.

Yes...you seem to be mistaking me with somebody who would advance the merits of a male father figure. Try reading the thread, and the content of posts, before making a buffoon of yourself.

Yes...you seem to be mistaking me with somebody who would advance the merits of a male father figure. Try reading the thread, and the content of posts, before making a buffoon of yourself.

I was merely responding to the sentiments you seemingly express in the quoted post. I recalled that earlier you had been "on my side" and wondered if you were playing devil's advocate.

I never denied that. I didn't make the claim that those units were in the process of disappearing, I rather illustrated how they have never really existed in the claimed form, but have always been adjusting to needs and requirements.

Absolutely. All social entities, organisms and instruments are malleable. I suspect I misunderstood you when you claimed the "family unit" was an artificial construction. I thought you referred to any entity bound by family ties, not the specific Victorian model.

I was merely responding to the sentiments you seemingly express in the quoted post. I recalled that earlier you had been "on my side" and wondered if you were playing devil's advocate.

Nope. Just differing with somebody else on a tangential issue.

I suspect I misunderstood you when you claimed the "family unit" was an artificial construction. I thought you referred to any entity bound by family ties, not the specific Victorian model.

My misunderstanding arose from there, also.

Absolutely. All social entities, organisms and instruments are malleable. I suspect I misunderstood you when you claimed the "family unit" was an artificial construction. I thought you referred to any entity bound by family ties, not the specific Victorian model.

No problem. I guess being misunderstood is the risk I run when trying to make clever, one-line remarks. ;)

This topic has definetly been agued for a long time! I, just like many others, have an opinion. Gay men and lesbian women getting married will in NO way ruin 'family vaules.' I'm not saying that I complelty support gay marriages, because I myself am straight...however, what ever happened to 'church and state' being seperated? Just because Adam and Eve were married in the garden of Eden, doesn't mean that Adam and Steve can't be married now! :fluffle: Family vaules are already decreasing, with 14 yr. old girls getting pregnate, boys getting stoned, fathers drinking to death and mothers sneaking around with other men becuase their cock is bigger!!! Even if the gay community were not 'allowed' to get married, that will never stop them from loving each other, becuase love is too strong of an emotion to let go!

Ignorance in what way? There may be Muslim posters here, I am simply stating a recognised fact: People are more likely to use what they know and have experienced as an example than that which is foreign and exotic to them. If asked a fruit, you would most likely say "apple" over "dragonfruit".

As an example, yes, and only as one example. Not sure if Christianity was "just an example" in some posts.

Or it's just me. Meh.

It happens to be a very common experience because most of the posters here are from cultures in which the dominant religion is Christianity. If this was a messageboard for a Middle Eastern country, I'm sure the atheists would be using Islam as an example.

You can believe it all you want 'til the cows come home but it doesn't make it true. There is zero basis for such conjecture. If you provide evidence to back it up, then maybe your argument would hold water. Right now, it's as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Eh...I never seek my argument to "hold water". I'm merely expressing what I believe and I don't seek to go on and prove my belief. But...


The tone and wording heavily implored a request for valid sources, not a subjective opinion.

You have zero proof that one gender is naturally suited for one role over another. Source, source, source. I don't care if it's your opinion, if I recall, I asked you to prove it, as you used it as an example to another poster's argument.

...source is personal observation and credo. You may dispute but meh...bite me. I'm not a bloody sociologist set to prove anything.

Idealy though a child should have good male and female role models yes?

Good role models sure, but why should gender enter into it?

You keep saying this, or some permutation of it, but you still haven't said why.

What is it that a gay person is unable to do, which a straight person is able to do?

What is it that I, as a female person, am incapable of doing for my family, which a male person will be able to do by virtue of his maleness?

Folks seem to think this is all about homophobia, but I'm starting to strongly doubt that. I think it's about sexism. It's about the fact that some people believe in gender roles to such a degree that they think a female person is innately incapable of performing certain familial functions, while a male person is innately incapable of performing others. I'm interested to see if GF will actually put up and state, specifically, what he thinks the deficiencies of the different genders are.

Gay couples are incapacble of being a man married to a woman. Men and women are the way that children are brought into the world. It is important for a child to see a man and a woman living together and resolving the problems that families and couples have in this world in a family affirming way. This way they will be able to go and do the same thing themselves. What is wrong with you that you cannot see this?

It is important for a child to have a Father and a Mother in a committed relationship. We call this marriage. A marriage is the most committed relationship because breaking up is not an option. In a family values centered marriage, divorce is never an option unless in the most extreme cases. Even in those cases, there is probably criminal and mental illness stuff going on as well which lets the child know that something was just abberrant about the bad parent and that he should not let that cloud his judgment as to what is acceptable in our families and in our society.

This is so basic you people make me really wonder about why you have trouble grasping this.

Not obviously so. I don't remember having any role models at all.

Thinking back, all of mine were fictional.

The difference isn't about "leadership" or "arbitration". The difference is "male leadership" and "female arbitration".

False dichotomy.

I believe that males are naturally and socially disposed to provide leadership while females are naturally and socially disposed to provide arbitration.

I believe the clouds are made of cotton candy. Our beleifs are equaly meaningful to reality.

Before you bludgeon me for being sexist or militant I declare that this is a personal viewpoint and I by no means plan or even imagine to impose it on other people.

A personal, sexist, viewpoint.

Gay couples are incapacble of being a man married to a woman. Men and women are the way that children are brought into the world. It is important for a child to see a man and a woman living together and resolving the problems that families and couples have in this world in a family affirming way. This way they will be able to go and do the same thing themselves. What is wrong with you that you cannot see this?

It is important for a child to have a Father and a Mother in a committed relationship. We call this marriage. A marriage is the most committed relationship because breaking up is not an option. In a family values centered marriage, divorce is never an option unless in the most extreme cases. Even in those cases, there is probably criminal and mental illness stuff going on as well which lets the child know that something was just abberrant about the bad parent and that he should not let that cloud his judgment as to what is acceptable in our families and in our society.

This is so basic you people make me really wonder about why you have trouble grasping this.

It is important for a child to have a cricket bat painted orange and a pet mouse called Craig. Without these things, no child can be happy or healthy. If the mouse called Craig dies when the child is less than 3 years old, that's a sure indicator that the child has dysentry, even if it doesn't. Mermaids can fly. If you believe otherwise, you must not function properly, obviously.

See, everything I just said is equally as valid as everything you said, because I didn't explain or support any of my points, either.

Of course, though, it's perfectly clear that if there's a divorce, one party must be criminally insane. I mean, there's no evidence whatsoever to support that, and great heaping piles of counterevidence, but still, it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have something wrong with them! After all, it's impossible to make bad decisions, be confused or stop loving someone.

Some people cannot be trusted with the capacity for thought. You are one such person.

A marriage is the most committed relationship because breaking up is not an option.

Divorce isn't real, just like fish, paper, eyes, the ground and coffee.

It is important for a child to have a cricket bat painted orange and a pet mouse called Craig. Without these things, no child can be happy or healthy. If the mouse called Craig dies when the child is less than 3 years old, that's a sure indicator that the child has dysentry, even if it doesn't. Mermaids can fly. If you believe otherwise, you must not function properly, obviously.

See, everything I just said is equally as valid as everything you said, because I didn't explain or support any of my points, either.

Some people cannot be trusted with the capacity for thought. You are one such person.

Ok. Let us break it down a bit. It is good for a married couple to work things out and stay married. This is good because the kids see how a successful marriage works. If they do not see this, they will think a successful marriage is like winning the lottery and "just happens" to other people.

Do you agree with me on this? Any questions?

Gay couples are incapacble of being a man married to a woman. Men and women are the way that children are brought into the world. It is important for a child to see a man and a woman living together and resolving the problems that families and couples have in this world in a family affirming way. This way they will be able to go and do the same thing themselves. What is wrong with you that you cannot see this?

So there's no need for it to see two men interacting with each other? Or two women?
And, truth be told, if all children ever did was imitate their parents, I would now be in a relationship as a completely dependent housewife and mother, incapable of finding a job for myself and earn my own living.


It is important for a child to have a Father and a Mother in a committed relationship. We call this marriage. A marriage is the most committed relationship because breaking up is not an option. In a family values centered marriage, divorce is never an option unless in the most extreme cases. Even in those cases, there is probably criminal and mental illness stuff going on as well which lets the child know that something was just abberrant about the bad parent and that he should not let that cloud his judgment as to what is acceptable in our families and in our society.

This is so basic you people make me really wonder about why you have trouble grasping this.

It's nonsense, that's why.
It's not important for a child to have a mother and father. It's important to have as many loving and caring adults around as possible. Genetic relation doesn't mean sqaut to a child, it will happily relate to any loving adult and learn from them.

And going around sprouting nonsense about how marriages cannot be broken is dangerous in the extreme. There are people out there who unfortunatley belief this sort of hogswash, my mother having been one if them, and who will ruin themselves and their children in an effort to keep a family together, all the while thinking that what she's doing is for the best of all.

Ok. Let us break it down a bit. It is good for a married couple to work things out and stay married. This is good because the kids see how a successful marriage works. If they do not see this, they will think a successful marriage is like winning the lottery and "just happens" to other people.

Do you agree with me on this? Any questions?

No.
I saw my parents marriage, in which case "working things out" meant doing what my father said. I "learned" that all females are weak, have no will of their own, and cannot operate any sort of technical equipment.

Yet, despite this experience, I'm in a happy, balanced relationship, earning my own money, and working in IT. I know that my marriage will in no aspect be anything like my parents' used to be, and I've at no point believed that their's was normal or that you need to get "lucky".

Give people a little bit of credit, please. Most do have a brain, even though you often can't tell straight away.

Ok. Let us break it down a bit. It is good for a married couple to work things out and stay married. This is good because the kids see how a successful marriage works. If they do not see this, they will think a successful marriage is like winning the lottery and "just happens" to other people.

Do you agree with me on this? Any questions?

It's good for people to be happy. If they can't be happy together, they shouldn't be together. It's as simple as that. Marrying and having kids doesn't turn you into a slave whose only function is the production and raising of children.

And let's address your blind assertion that homosexual couples can't raise children. Justify that one, Herr Freedonia.

So there's no need for it to see two men interacting with each other? Or two women?
And, truth be told, if all children ever did was imitate their parents, I would now be in a relationship as a completely dependent housewife and mother, incapable of finding a job for myself and earn my own living.



It's nonsense, that's why.
It's not important for a child to have a mother and father. It's important to have as many loving and caring adults around as possible. Genetic relation doesn't mean sqaut to a child, it will happily relate to any loving adult and learn from them.

And going around sprouting nonsense about how marriages cannot be broken is dangerous in the extreme. There are people out there who unfortunatley belief this sort of hogswash, my mother having been one if them, and who will ruin themselves and their children in an effort to keep a family together, all the while thinking that what she's doing is for the best of all.

Ok. How is my idea harmful that a marriage should be a committed relationship that should not be ended unless there is something really awful going on that is also criminal and possibly also involves mental illness? How does this harm anyone, really? I am open to the idea that I could be wrong here, I know what it is like to be the victim of good intentions.

It's good for people to be happy. If they can't be happy together, they shouldn't be together. It's as simple as that. Marrying and having kids doesn't turn you into a slave whose only function is the production and raising of children.

And let's address your blind assertion that homosexual couples can't raise children. Justify that one, Herr Freedonia.

Hey if you get married to someone you cant let a little thing like unhappiness come between you and your responsibilities. Nobody forces anyone to get married. Nobody forces someone to become a parent (ok some men are forced to by women but men have a little way to go yet to get equality but that is a separate issue). These are big commitments and should not be entered into willy-nilly.

False dichotomy.

Aye. I agree that it is a rather unscientific conclusion. But my observation and I think like this, and unless something changes it, it's going to be what I think.


I believe the clouds are made of cotton candy. Our beleifs are equaly meaningful to reality.
You compare a fact of natural science with a hypothesis of human science. The two are not comparable.



A personal, sexist, viewpoint.This I wholeheartedly admit. I am sexist, but not in the sense that I believe one gender is generally superior over the other, but in the sense that the two are different but equally important in a healthy society.

Ok. How is my idea harmful that a marriage should be a committed relationship that should not be ended unless there is something really awful going on that is also criminal and possibly also involves mental illness? How does this harm anyone, really? I am open to the idea that I could be wrong here, I know what it is like to be the victim of good intentions.

If two people who hate eachother are forced together because of a silly ceremony they went through years ago, they will not be happy. It is harmful because you are dehumanising every married person in the world, saying that they don't deserve the right to choose to be happy because they got married.

Hey if you get married to someone you cant let a little thing like unhappiness come between you and your responsibilities.

Little things like "unhappiness"? Those little things that drive people to mental illness and suicide? OH, THOSE.

It's still perfectly possible to raise a child in a broken-up marriage. More difficult, but perfectly possible.

And please answer my question.

It's good for people to be happy. If they can't be happy together, they shouldn't be together. It's as simple as that. Marrying and having kids doesn't turn you into a slave whose only function is the production and raising of children.

And let's address your blind assertion that homosexual couples can't raise children. Justify that one, Herr Freedonia.

No. Lets start with this basic fundamental principle. It is the foundation for everything else.

And let's address your blind assertion that homosexual couples can't raise children. Justify that one, Herr Freedonia.

Well for a start they can't produce children on their own. All things being equal, perfect and natural, two persons engaging in homosexual sex is unable to have any children at all to raise. To be able to even have the chance of raising children there must be some sort of imperfection, social construction, or artificial manipulation in the natural system: abandoned children, orphans, surgeries, adoption etc.

It's not that homosexuals can't raise children well, but if nature had its way, homosexual sex can't even produce children.

Ok. Let us break it down a bit. It is good for a married couple to work things out and stay married.


Not if staying married is the lesser alternative. Staying 'together' but miserable is a poor choice - and is destructive to the children.

This is good because the kids see how a successful marriage works.


Which might well be irrelevent, right? It's only relevent IF 'marriage' is relevent to the children.


If they do not see this, they will think a successful marriage is like winning the lottery and "just happens" to other people.

Do you agree with me on this? Any questions?

'Marriage' isn't necessary to life, conception, living together or raising children. It's ultimately irrelevent to the argument of 'family values', in truth.

Little things like "unhappiness"? Those little things that drive people to mental illness and suicide? OH, THOSE.

It's still perfectly possible to raise a child in a broken-up marriage. More difficult, but perfectly possible.

And please answer my question.

Do you think that the defenders of the Alamo enjoyed being surrounded? They did not but they did their duty.

No. Lets start with this basic fundamental principle. It is the foundation for everything else.

What fundamental principle? Your idea that married people cease to be people? If I am unhappy in a relationship, I will damn well end it. In marriage you make a commitment, but if there's no chance for the two people to be happy together, if they do not love eachother, this commitment is pointless and void.

Ok. How is my idea harmful that a marriage should be a committed relationship that should not be ended unless there is something really awful going on that is also criminal and possibly also involves mental illness? How does this harm anyone, really? I am open to the idea that I could be wrong here, I know what it is like to be the victim of good intentions.

Because people don't have to be criminal or mentally sick to traumatise their kids.
If a marriage is failing, the decent thing to do is talk to the kids, explain what went wrong and why, ask them about their opinion on things (if they're old enough) and work out a way to split up that works for everyone involved.

Living together with someone you do not love any more or have reservations against will not be good for the kids, on the contrary. And it will not be good for your own mental health, and not for that of your partner. You can keep up a spiel like that for a while, but it will inevitably wear you down, it can lead to severe depression (as it did in the case of my mother), and it is immense stress for the children, who have to grow up in a tense situation like that.
Just moving 2 houses away from one another can diffuse the tension and aggeression, the kids can see either parent whenever they choose, and the parents can get on with their own lives, possibly finding new partners, and have a chance of being balanced, emotionally stable adults again.

No. Lets start with this basic fundamental principle. It is the foundation for everything else.

Utter rubbish. If the discussion is 'family values', you have to show how it imapcts family values. If your argument revolves purely around marriage (which isn't necessary for a family), then you ultimately have nothing.

Do you think that the defenders of the Alamo enjoyed being surrounded? They did not but they did their duty.

Everyone, listen up! Sorry to tell you this, but your marriage should now be reminiscent of warfare.

The defenders of the Alamo did not have a choice, and much more was at stake than a marriage. Do you think people enjoyed dying of cholera? No, so they built goddamn sewers.

Hey if you get married to someone you cant let a little thing like unhappiness come between you and your responsibilities. Nobody forces anyone to get married. Nobody forces someone to become a parent (ok some men are forced to by women but men have a little way to go yet to get equality but that is a separate issue). These are big commitments and should not be entered into willy-nilly.

True. But long-term unhappiness is detrimential to your own mental and physical health, and it's likely to rub off on those around you, the kids for example.

Little things like "unhappiness"? Those little things that drive people to mental illness and suicide? OH, THOSE.

It's still perfectly possible to raise a child in a broken-up marriage. More difficult, but perfectly possible.

And please answer my question.

How did the unhappiness occur? It was not by chance. It was because of poor relationship skills. These are probably the result of poor family values. Do you see my point yet?

Ho ho ho. It seems that now we can't even come to a common definition of "family"!!!

Please, pray tell: how do all of you define "family"?

If two people who hate eachother are forced together because of a silly ceremony they went through years ago, they will not be happy. It is harmful because you are dehumanising every married person in the world, saying that they don't deserve the right to choose to be happy because they got married.

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?

Do you think that the defenders of the Alamo enjoyed being surrounded? They did not but they did their duty.

Unless you are arguing that marriage should be unpleasant, destructive... and ultimately fatal... then your 'parallel' is irrelevent.

Do you think that the defenders of the Alamo enjoyed being surrounded? They did not but they did their duty.

That siege didn't last for several decades, though...

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?
Sometimes, sadly, that simply isn't an option.

How did the unhappiness occur? It was not by chance. It was because of poor relationship skills. These are probably the result of poor family values. Do you see my point yet?

So - the reason you come across as unpleasant is because you lack social skills, and that's a failing in your upbringing?

See what I did there?

How did the unhappiness occur? It was not by chance. It was because of poor relationship skills. These are probably the result of poor family values. Do you see my point yet?

Most likely because people make mistakes.
They do, you know?

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?

Or, how about people just make each other as happy as they can, and we ignore the irrelevences like 'married' and 'couple'?

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?

Nobody gets married planning to make the other unhappy (well, ok, most don't).
But it happens. People make bad choices, and divorce is a way of correcting them with the least amount of damage.

Ho ho ho. It seems that now we can't even come to a common definition of "family"!!!

Please, pray tell: how do all of you define "family"?

A family is a community of people bound by blood and marriage. It is comprised of all who live today, lived in the past, and have yet to be born into the family.

It is a foundation of larger society. It is also a major psychological foundation for develloping a greater compassion and love for all of creation.

Or, how about people just make each other as happy as they can, and we ignore the irrelevences like 'married' and 'couple'?

Eh...what constitutes a "family" then?

Ho ho ho. It seems that now we can't even come to a common definition of "family"!!!

Please, pray tell: how do all of you define "family"?

A number of adults raising a number of children.

How did the unhappiness occur? It was not by chance. It was because of poor relationship skills. These are probably the result of poor family values. Do you see my point yet?

The unhappiness occurs because one of the two changes? Because they fall out of love? Because they never really loved eachother in the first place?

Marriage is about love, not babies. If there's no love in a marriage, it's not worth keeping.

Eh...what constitutes a "family" then?

Because a 'family' doesn't have to have anyone in it that is 'married'.... or any 'couples'.

Nobody gets married planning to make the other unhappy (well, ok, most don't).
But it happens. People make bad choices, and divorce is a way of correcting them with the least amount of damage.

Poopycock! Divorce is an emergency escape hatch that should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. A poor marriage is the result of poor relationship skills and damaged minds and souls. An unhappy marriage is an illness to be cured not a monster to be killed.

I have a better idea. How about the married couple make each other happy instead?

And if they can't? They just need to suffer for the sake of their child, who will learn that all-important lesson from the experience: "If you hate someone, you should marry them!"

A number of adults raising a number of children.

So nuns in charge of an orphanage: family?

That's a pretty...loose term for family...but still...makes sense.

Hmm...interesting.

Does lineage affect this at all?

Poopycock! Divorce is an emergency escape hatch that should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. A poor marriage is the result of poor relationship skills and damaged minds and souls. An unhappy marriage is an illness to be cured not a monster to be killed.

An unhappy marriage that cannot be fixed is a monster to be killed. There are psychological distresses at work under the veneer of common sense of this poster, methinks. Familial crisis? Possibly.

Sometimes, sadly, that simply isn't an option.

Yes. For example, wifey goes to the grocery store and never comes home.

Because a 'family' doesn't have to have anyone in it that is 'married'.... or any 'couples'.

What does it contain then?

The unhappiness occurs because one of the two changes? Because they fall out of love? Because they never really loved eachother in the first place?

Marriage is about love, not babies. If there's no love in a marriage, it's not worth keeping.
People rarely fundamentally change. If you get a divorce every time you "fall out of love" you'll be changing spouses about every 2 years. The hormones causing "love" aren't going to last very long. You can't base your legal commitments on emotions.

A family is a community of people


This part is true.


...bound by blood and marriage. It is comprised of all who live today, lived in the past, and have yet to be born into the family.


This part isn't.


It is a foundation of larger society.


This part isn't.


It is also a major psychological foundation for develloping a greater compassion and love for all of creation.

This part isn't. Indeed, this part is pure fantasy.

Poopycock! Divorce is an emergency escape hatch that should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances. A poor marriage is the result of poor relationship skills and damaged minds and souls. An unhappy marriage is an illness to be cured not a monster to be killed.

Rrright... and how would you "cure" it?
I think the most important thing about a marriage is that both (or all, as the case may be) absolutely need to want to make it work. As soon as either of them doesn't feel that way any more, the other one can be the most brilliant spouse in the world, it will not fix the marriage again.

And if they can't? They just need to suffer for the sake of their child, who will learn that all-important lesson from the experience: "If you hate someone, you should marry them!"

Ok if you loved someone enough to marry them why is it so impossible to believe that you cannot try to find out why they are so unhappy and make them happy again?

A number of adults raising a number of children.

To be honest, the adult/children dichotomy is irrelevent, too.

Family is people that function as.... well, family. There don't have to be any adults. There don't have to be any children. No one has to raise anyone.

What does it contain then?

A number of adults raising a number of children.

Does lineage affect this at all?

Do you believe adoption can be viable?

This is all a massive detour, however! Presumably our dear, ironically-named "Glorious Freedonia" thinks of the title of the thread as a true statement. Perhaps he would care to honour us with an explanation of why he thinks so?

Or have I misread his conservative extremism? Also, a side-note: Are you a creationist? I ask so that I might know if this argument is worth continuing. I won't argue against blind dogma.

What does it contain then?

People.

To be honest, the adult/children dichotomy is irrelevent, too.

Family is people that function as.... well, family. There don't have to be any adults. There don't have to be any children. No one has to raise anyone.

Hmm... I agree with there not being a need for adults. However, my understanding of family will always include children. Adults are not a family, they're a couple...

Ok if you loved someone enough to marry them why is it so impossible to believe that you cannot try to find out why they are so unhappy and make them happy again?

It is possible to stop loving someone.

Personally I think gay people are cowards.

It's hard to be in a relationship with a girl. If I was gay, the question "Hey, honey, where is ------?" would never arise. Because it would be exactly where I left it the night before.


Not really my exact views on gays, but it sounded funny in my head.

The way I view people of an alternative lifestyle is this. If you are gay, that matters to me about as much as whether or not you like tomato on your hamburger, or whether you like hamburger at all. Meaning, I don't give a shit.

It's when you let that lifestyle become all that you are, all that you offer the world, that it becomes offensive to me. When you start calling me a lowlife "breeder" or saying that all my choices are "biology friendly." And it's not gay people alone. It's anyone. Religious fanatics, BORING (whoops I mean NASCAR) fans, gamblers, sex addicts, pot smokers, etc.

It becomes detrimental to you as a person, when you let it be all that you encompass. When all you have to offer the world is you are gay, or a pot smoker, if there is nothing remotely interesting about you other than something you do or a choice you make, then to me, you are a waste of space. There are people out there that like having sex with warm glasses of milk. I don't see them marching around.

Okay...so at the end of the day we even disagree on what "family" means. No wonder the heated debate.

So nuns in charge of an orphanage: family?

That's a pretty...loose term for family...but still...makes sense.

Hmm...interesting.

Does lineage affect this at all?

I'm sure if you ask those kids, they will think of it as family.

Lineage doesn't affect it at all. Otherwise, adoptive families couldn't very well be families, right?

This part is true.



This part isn't.



This part isn't.



This part isn't. Indeed, this part is pure fantasy.

Ok, why is a family not the present, past, and future? Maybe you need to meditate on it a bit more. This explains why you have not made it a foundation for your interconnectedness with all of creation and not helped you to be more loving and compassionate perhaps? I bet you are not even an environmentalist.

People.

That's not a good enough defintion for any kind of meaningful discussion. If that's your defintion there's no point in discussing anything related to family because everything would be familial.

Hmm... I agree with there not being a need for adults. However, my understanding of family will always include children. Adults are not a family, they're a couple...

That suggests we are only talking about two adults, and that those two adults are specifically living as a couple...?

Yes. For example, wifey goes to the grocery store and never comes home.
Excuse me?

Personally I think gay people are cowards.

It's hard to be in a relationship with a girl. If I was gay, the question "Hey, honey, where is ------?" would never arise. Because it would be exactly where I left it the night before.


Not really my exact views on gays, but it sounded funny in my head.

The way I view people of an alternative lifestyle is this. If you are gay, that matters to me about as much as whether or not you like tomato on your hamburger, or whether you like hamburger at all. Meaning, I don't give a shit.

It's when you let that lifestyle become all that you are, all that you offer the world, that it becomes offensive to me. When you start calling me a lowlife "breeder" or saying that all my choices are "biology friendly." And it's not gay people alone. It's anyone. Religious fanatics, BORING (whoops I mean NASCAR) fans, gamblers, sex addicts, pot smokers, etc.

It becomes detrimental to you as a person, when you let it be all that you encompass. When all you have to offer the world is you are gay, or a pot smoker, if there is nothing remotely interesting about you other than something you do or a choice you make, then to me, you are a waste of space. There are people out there that like having sex with warm glasses of milk. I don't see them marching around.

Great post!