The Loss of Freedoms

[billvon 2,478]

>There is NO better model or construct for the family than the
> traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on
> that. Everything else is substandard at best.

Just like in the 1950's, an all-white family was best. Destroy that, destroy society. You might as well have women having sex with apes (which was a favorite comparison at the time.) It was also well-known that if women worked (or if - horrors! - the woman worked and the man raised the family) that society as we know it would come to an end.

Didn't happen then. The best family family situation is a parent (or parents) who love a child enough that they are willing to put his/her well-being ahead of their own, no matter what their race, religion, sexual orientation or politics. There are actually conservative activists who would rather keep children in orphanages than to allow loving parents to adopt them, just because they disagree with the person's sexuality. And in the end, that hurts everyone.

[micro 0]

Quote

You don't always get the ideal, and love among people should be encouraged

No you don't always get the ideal... but you said it... the ideal... and it should be strived for. AND, it's attainable.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>There is NO better model or construct for the family than the
> traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on
> that. Everything else is substandard at best.

Just like in the 1950's, an all-white family was best. Destroy that, destroy society. You might as well have women having sex with apes (which was a favorite comparison at the time.) It was also well-known that if women worked (or if - horrors! - the woman worked and the man raised the family) that society as we know it would come to an end.

Didn't happen then. The best family family situation is a parent (or parents) who love a child enough that they are willing to put his/her well-being ahead of their own, no matter what their race, religion, sexual orientation or politics. There are actually conservative activists who would rather keep children in orphanages than to allow loving parents to adopt them, just because they disagree with the person's sexuality. And in the end, that hurts everyone.

Leave it to you to bring race into this. This isn't about race bill and you know it. This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

Leave it to you to bring race into this. This isn't about race bill and you know it. This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child.

Exactly and the woman staying home and looking after the family while the father goes out and makes a living. The woman will do as she is told. It is all pretty clear in the bible.

Any man who stays home with the kids is obviously just a hedonistic faggot, cause that is a woman's job.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The liberal ideology tears families apart, period.

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there.

I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on.

Wendy W.

By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries.

I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end.

If you aren't away of any liberals who don't advocate divorce, then you must be an osterich. Actually, in a sense you answered your own question by your second sentence. Your "verbal engineering" is humorous... ""their particular brand of behavior" and "forcing families that are already broken"

Give me a break john... it's largely b/c of liberals that no-fault divorce exists in this country.

Here's a few books for your night-time reading...

It Takes a Family by Rick Santorum
Do Gooders by Mona Charen

These might help John.

Stop playing semantic games. Advocating divorce is not the same as permitting it. No liberal I know wishes to encourage divorce.

YOU are just pissed that the rest of us don't wish to be legally bound to your mythology.

Mona Charen, Bwahaaha.

Santorum!!!

Me? Pissed? Hardly. I'd like it if you would stop ascribing emotions to me that aren't true.

And oh, how old and stale it gets (like the author) that anytime anyone argues with you, pretty much the only comeback you can come up w/ is "semantics."

If you don't know liberals who don't ADVOCATE for divorce, then you are a poor member of the party.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 2,478]

>This isn't about race bill and you know it.

Right. This time it's about sexuality. Same underlying reason - someone thinks that a gay family isn't a good one, just as they thought that an interracial family wasn't a good one. No hard reason, it's just how they feel.

>This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child.

I know several examples that prove that completely wrong. There's no reason you need a man and a woman to have a family, any more than you need people of the same religion, race or politics.

[micro 0]

Quote

>This isn't about race bill and you know it.

Right. This time it's about sexuality. Same underlying reason - someone thinks that a gay family isn't a good one, just as they thought that an interracial family wasn't a good one. No hard reason, it's just how they feel.

>This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child.

I know several examples that prove that completely wrong. There's no reason you need a man and a woman to have a family, any more than you need people of the same religion, race or politics.

Wow. The complete LACK of logic in your argument is simply astounding, esp. since in so many other areas you're such an erudite man.

It's very clear to me that there's no arguing the point w/ you. And they say my mind is closed.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 2,478]

>The complete LACK of logic in your argument is simply astounding . . .

?? You're the one asserting that you need a man and a woman and a child (or several) to have a family. This flies in the face of what I've seen; I know same-sex families that are happy, loving families.

So prove you are correct. Prove you need a family made up of a man, a woman, and children. (Without using the bible argument, which was the way interracial marriages were proscribed.) Without proof, the evidence is against you.

[Michele 1]

Bill (and others), I'm not quite sure I understand why you don't accept - or at least understand - positions other than yours. Sure, you believe you're right; but others believe they're right, too.

Micro's position is the proper one for him; yours is the proper one for you. I have my own position, and it's the proper one for me.

So why can't it just be accepted that reasonable people might have different views, and hold different opinions, and not bring ancillary issues (i.e. race, bible proscriptions [which, btw, might not be quite as correct as you think...or at least, not quite as "one-sided", should I say...], and so forth) into the discussion?

I think Michael's position has validity; yours does, too. I come to that conclusion from knowing both of you, and also understanding the reasoning for your opinions (insofar as you've articulated them here). I may or may not agree with one or the other, but I can completely see both points. Not sure if I'm special that way, or it's just that I'm willing to look at things from other sides and listen to others' opinions...but it is a good thing, don't you think? Fostering understanding without rancor is a good idea, no matter which political party you belong to or believe in.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

>This isn't about race bill and you know it.

Right. This time it's about sexuality. Same underlying reason - someone thinks that a gay family isn't a good one, just as they thought that an interracial family wasn't a good one. No hard reason, it's just how they feel.

>This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child.

I know several examples that prove that completely wrong. There's no reason you need a man and a woman to have a family, any more than you need people of the same religion, race or politics.

Wow. The complete LACK of logic in your argument is simply astounding, esp. since in so many other areas you're such an erudite man.

Maybe the fault is yours. After all, you confess to holding certain mythical beliefs on faith alone, without any objective proof. That's illogical.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

Bill (and others), I'm not quite sure I understand why you don't accept - or at least understand - positions other than yours. Sure, you believe you're right; but others believe they're right, too.

Micro's position is the proper one for him; yours is the proper one for you. I have my own position, and it's the proper one for me.

So why can't it just be accepted that reasonable people might have different views, and hold different opinions, and not bring ancillary issues (i.e. race, bible proscriptions [which, btw, might not be quite as correct as you think...or at least, not quite as "one-sided", should I say...], and so forth) into the discussion?

I think Michael's position has validity; yours does, too. I come to that conclusion from knowing both of you, and also understanding the reasoning for your opinions (insofar as you've articulated them here). I may or may not agree with one or the other, but I can completely see both points. Not sure if I'm special that way, or it's just that I'm willing to look at things from other sides and listen to others' opinions...but it is a good thing, don't you think? Fostering understanding without rancor is a good idea, no matter which political party you belong to or believe in.

I agree. So why do Conservatives in the US want to make it against the constitution to have gays form a family? Obviously they aren't particularly open to people with a different view/opinion. As a matter of fact, it is about as closed-minded as you can get.

Michele, are you for or against this amendmend?

[wmw999 2,178]

I think the difference comes in that micro's is the most limiting of definitions, so making it the standard for US society would make Billvon's et. al. invalid. While Billvon's definition does not change what Micro can call a family, right?

Is an unhappy family with a mother, father, and child better off than a happy one with something different? Yes, a happy family with father, mother and child seems to be best for most. But rejecting everything else doesn't seem like it would make that more likely for people who have been burned.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Michele 1]

Quote

Michele, are you for or against this amendmend?

Neither, as I don't understand it's full realm of ramifications yet. Once I have done the research, I'll arrive at an opinion. 'Til then, I will remain neutral.

And you?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

Neither, as I don't understand it's full realm of ramifications yet. Once I have done the research, I'll arrive at an opinion. 'Til then, I will remain neutral.

And you?

Against. Eventhough I agree that for most the ideal family make-up would be a father, mother and a child or children, I see no reason why it should be legally limited to that. I believe other's should be allowed to have a different opinion and actually be able to live it as well.

It is very nice and easy to say that you allow other's to have their own opinion. It means nothing though when you then limit their ability to live their opinion.

[Lindsey 0]

There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best.

That's just silly. What makes other families substandard? You think my family (me and my child) is substandard next to yours? I don't. We even have an extended family of people who aren't blood relatives! GASP! They look after my child, support him, and nurture him even when I'm at [whisper]work[/whisper].

I even know families without children who are not substandard. I know a family with two dads and a child that are as ideal as any.... Now, if mom/dad/children is the best model for you and yours....then have at it. But there's a lot of good outside the confines of such a limited view....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best.

That's just silly. What makes other families substandard? You think my family (me and my child) is substandard next to yours? I don't. We even have an extended family of people who aren't blood relatives! GASP! They look after my child, support him, and nurture him even when I'm at [whisper]work[/whisper].

I even know families without children who are not substandard. I know a family with two dads and a child that are as ideal as any.... Now, if mom/dad/children is the best model for you and yours....then have at it. But there's a lot of good outside the confines of such a limited view....

linz

Hey, you're lucky. A few hundred years ago you'd have been burned as a heretic by the conservatives of the era.

The Roman church was particularly fond of dealing with liberals that way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Hey, you're lucky. A few hundred years ago you'd have been burned as a heretic by the conservatives of the era.

The Roman church was particularly fond of dealing with liberals that way.

It haunts me in my dreams....

really.


linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best.

That's just silly. What makes other families substandard? You think my family (me and my child) is substandard next to yours? I don't. We even have an extended family of people who aren't blood relatives! GASP! They look after my child, support him, and nurture him even when I'm at [whisper]work[/whisper].

I even know families without children who are not substandard. I know a family with two dads and a child that are as ideal as any.... Now, if mom/dad/children is the best model for you and yours....then have at it. But there's a lot of good outside the confines of such a limited view....

linz

Hey, you're lucky. A few hundred years ago you'd have been burned as a heretic by the conservatives of the era.

The Roman church was particularly fond of dealing with liberals that way.

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up.

This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint.

John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them.

Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 2,478]

> I'm not quite sure I understand why you don't accept - or at least
>understand - positions other than yours.

I understand his position; he's stated it often enough. I just disagree. And I suppose I take it a bit personally because he's calling some friends of mine "substandard."

I think anyone should be able to think whatever they want is the "ideal" family. Always heterosexual, always gay, mixed-religion, same religion, whatever. It's when groups try to _legislate_ that that I get annoyed.

Let's reverse it. I am very much in favor of solar power. I generate my own power, I help other people install their solar power systems, I installed one at our drop zone so they have power (they're far from any utilities.) I suspect no one would have a problem with this.

Now, if I were to become an activist and start agitating for solar incentives, I might get some utility people annoyed with me, as well as some people who, on general principles, don't like such things. Also fine.

But if I started pushing for a law that required non-environmentalists be disconnected from utility service until they installed solar power - I'd expect to get a lot of grief. Because that would be me trying to impose my opinions on others. I suspect this would annoy you as well.

>Micro's position is the proper one for him; yours is the proper one for
>you. I have my own position, and it's the proper one for me.

Exactly. Yet some people here insist on calling other people "substandard."

>So why can't it just be accepted that reasonable people might have
>different views, and hold different opinions . . .

It can be.

>and not bring ancillary issues (i.e. race, bible proscriptions . . .

Because this same sort of proposition (that there is one "correct" sort of marriage, that what God wants has something to do with it) has been used in the past to legislate morality, just as is being done now.

Claiming that's an ancillary issue is like claiming you should never bring 9/11 into any discussion of terrorism because "that's completely different."

[micro 0]

Quote

> I'm not quite sure I understand why you don't accept - or at least
>understand - positions other than yours.

I understand his position; he's stated it often enough. I just disagree. And I suppose I take it a bit personally because he's calling some friends of mine "substandard."

I think anyone should be able to think whatever they want is the "ideal" family. Always heterosexual, always gay, mixed-religion, same religion, whatever. It's when groups try to _legislate_ that that I get annoyed.

Let's reverse it. I am very much in favor of solar power. I generate my own power, I help other people install their solar power systems, I installed one at our drop zone so they have power (they're far from any utilities.) I suspect no one would have a problem with this.

Now, if I were to become an activist and start agitating for solar incentives, I might get some utility people annoyed with me, as well as some people who, on general principles, don't like such things. Also fine.

But if I started pushing for a law that required non-environmentalists be disconnected from utility service until they installed solar power - I'd expect to get a lot of grief. Because that would be me trying to impose my opinions on others. I suspect this would annoy you as well.

>Micro's position is the proper one for him; yours is the proper one for
>you. I have my own position, and it's the proper one for me.

Exactly. Yet some people here insist on calling other people "substandard."

>So why can't it just be accepted that reasonable people might have
>different views, and hold different opinions . . .

It can be.

>and not bring ancillary issues (i.e. race, bible proscriptions . . .

Because this same sort of proposition (that there is one "correct" sort of marriage, that what God wants has something to do with it) has been used in the past to legislate morality, just as is being done now.

Claiming that's an ancillary issue is like claiming you should never bring 9/11 into any discussion of terrorism because "that's completely different."

Let's clear the air bill. I have not called your friends substandard. I have said that a non-traditional family (male-male-child, woman-child) is substandard. Shall I use a different word? Will you be less offended? Not that I care about your offense, really, since I'm just as offended that bed-wetting liberals want to try and redefine just what in the hell a family is anyway, as if it's something that even CAN be redefined! But, just for arguments sake, lets call it "less-than-ideal."

Where does a child thrive most? Where will a child truly reach it's full human potential? Is it in a home w/ just a mother? Just a father? Or when there are both in the home, married, getting along, fully committed to each other and living harmoniously? I'm not even going to begin to give the homosexual question any validity by arguing that point. As IF a man and a man can successfully raise a child as well as a husband and a wife can. For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool. You've swallowed it all, hook line and sinker. (Ha! I said sinker! I knew him once. )

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Remster 26]

Quote

For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool

That's sad. It really is.

Remster

[billvon 2,478]

>Where does a child thrive most? Where will a child truly reach it's full
>human potential?

In a home with parents that love him. They don't need to be a specific sex, color, religion or relation. It can be two women who adopt a child. It can be a man and a woman who have a child through IVF. It can be grandparents who raise a child when the parents are killed. It can be a single mother who wants a child but does not want a husband. It can be a black man and a white woman. It can be a Muslim and a Protestant (of either sex!)

All those situations are many times better than a man and a woman who have a child they do not want, because they just let nature take its course. Even if they do meet your definition of ideal.

> As IF a man and a man can successfully raise a child as well as a
>husband and a wife can.

They can and they have. There are children who have grown up to be responsible adults who prove that. (Unless you are going to claim they are substandard as well!)

>For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool.

Hmm. Although I think you're wrong, I wouldn't call you a fool. I'm guessing this is a very emotional issue for you, so I'll leave it at that.

[Lindsey 0]

As IF a man and a man can successfully raise a child as well as a husband and a wife can. For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool.

Hmm. Maybe it just says that you have blinders on.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[christelsabine 1]

.....

[micro 0]

Quote

>Where does a child thrive most? Where will a child truly reach it's full
>human potential?

In a home with parents that love him. They don't need to be a specific sex, color, religion or relation. It can be two women who adopt a child. It can be a man and a woman who have a child through IVF. It can be grandparents who raise a child when the parents are killed. It can be a single mother who wants a child but does not want a husband. It can be a black man and a white woman. It can be a Muslim and a Protestant (of either sex!)

All those situations are many times better than a man and a woman who have a child they do not want, because they just let nature take its course. Even if they do meet your definition of ideal.

> As IF a man and a man can successfully raise a child as well as a
>husband and a wife can.

They can and they have. There are children who have grown up to be responsible adults who prove that. (Unless you are going to claim they are substandard as well!)

>For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool.

Hmm. Although I think you're wrong, I wouldn't call you a fool. I'm guessing this is a very emotional issue for you, so I'll leave it at that.

And here you cloud the issue by trying to juxtapose your rose colored examples w/ a man-woman who "just let nature take it's course" and had an unwanted pregnancy when, as I'm sure you know, I would find that just as deplorable. No child should be "unwanted." You are full of rhetoric.

And THEN, you stoop to kallend's level and ascribe emotions to my posts in a vain effort to discredit my position. I never thought you'd go there bill, but well, there it is.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...