quote:do you seriously think that banning gay marriages would stop a person from loving someone of the same sex?
No, and no-one is trying to tell anyone who they can love. Gays are not being discriminated against. Gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like all other citizens. What they are NOT free to do is change the centuries old definition of marriage to suit their desires.
quote:but that is a private thing between two people...
It is normally a private thing between hetrosexuals, but that is far from the case with gays. Turn on the TV. Gays (especially in California) are always having their silly gay parades where they dress up like a bunch of freaks and act like idiots! Private? I dont' think so. That is the face of the gay movement in the US and it is a disgrace!!! They're like a bunch of immature high schoolers acting out to get attention.
Posts: 947 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Common PM...been to Mardi Gras lately? How about spring break? A rager? A keger? A neighborhood dance? A nightclub?
Our hetero sons and daughters promote their sexuality just as much as the homosexual element of our community. It just doesn't attract attention because it is seen as normal.
And what do we hope for our hetero sons and daughters? That eventually they will find a nice boy/girl, settle down into a comfortable loving relationship, get married, and maybe have a few kids. That is stability, and we garner satisfaction from knowing that our children have a support structure that will continue past when we are gone.
But homosexuals don't deserve stability to you do they?
Like I said...don't want to call it marriage and that is just fine. But they do deserve to be recognized.
quote: shall we rush?
lol...
The male/female monogamous 'family value' home is a societal concept not grounded in reality.
you still comfortable with this statement?
Must be a slow morning. I expected everybody to jump all over me after that one.
No...I stand by it. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. It is a very good thing. That such a thing CAN exist is a testament to human fortitude. But we should recognize it for what it is; an abnormality.
(Please forgive semi-colon if it is not appropriate. I never have understood when it was right to use them.)
With a divorce rate standing at 50% in the country and god only knows the rate of infidelity...I would think we would all understand that the male/female monogamous 'family values' home is something to aspire to...not the place where we set the standard of normal. It is distinctly abnormal within our own species and even more so on a global scale to have such a relationship work.
So why are we setting that as our basic criteria for what constitutes an minimally acceptable arrangement for raising children? That's ludicrous!
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3947 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This existence of this thread proves that what I've been saying is true...
The dems and the reps continue to stir up emotions with frivolous issues like this..just to create diversions and division so average joe doesn't pay attention to what they are really up to...
Seriously...WHY is anyone spending any of their time squabbling over this issue when there are REAL problems that we should be dealing with...
-------------------- ------------------------- It's all in the timing.... Posts: 3008 | From: The Motor City | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously...WHY is anyone spending any of their time squabbling over this issue when there are REAL problems that we should be dealing with...
It's a symptom of a sick society, Retired, and it's getting worse. That's why I worry about it. No, it's not the one issue I will vote my candidate on, but it's something I care where they fall on it.
Back to Big though.
With a divorce rate standing at 50% in the country and god only knows the rate of infidelity...I would think we would all understand that the male/female monogamous 'family values' home is something to aspire to...not the place where we set the standard of normal. It is distinctly abnormal within our own species and even more so on a global scale to have such a relationship work.
I think there's a critical flaw in that logic, Big. You're assuming that the above 'facts' are inevitable and natural in the human race and therefore valid arguments against the monagamous, traditional home.
Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right.'
And here we are.
There are many models of child-rearing within nature and the two parent hetero model IS rare.
Not even in the same ball park, Big. The animal models are based on one of two scenarios: single member survival or small group family survival. In the first, the animal only has to learn enough from the parent to survive vs. predators and find prey. In the second, the member functions as a member of a small group (usually less than twenty individuals) and pure strength determines leadership positions.
Neither of these are tenable for the human race.
People need to be able to interact with and function along side others. They also need to understand authority that isn't based solely on punishments but also simple basic right and wrong. These traits aren't something that can be taught in a book or in a movie. They are taught by the example(ideally) of parents through interaction with eachother and with others. The child SEES and HEARS how they should act through these examples. Without them, they are left to fend for themselves as it were as to how to act.
This is why we see a predominately more frequent amount domestic abuse in adults who grew up in a household where it was present. That is what they learned was appropriate and so they repeat it. That is why people who have parents who smoke or drink are more likely to pick up the same habits at some point in their lives. They saw that their parents thought it was ok enough for them, it must be ok.
However, if that is the mode of thought through which we are arriving at the determination that a same sex couple should not raise children then by that logic a single parent home should be even more of an anathema. A child may be confused by the "distortion" a same sex couple brings to that ideal, but it is closer to the mode of choice than when one role is completely absent.
It's not a matter of how far from the standard model the example is, Big. It's what we as a society choose to have AS the standard model. No, I think the single parent home is not ideal. One of the two role models that the child needs is absent. They are forced to look outside the home for that example. Many times they find someone near to the family that can provide a healthy model. Many times they don't.
Now, for the sake of the arguement I'll take the bait.
In the homosexual couple home model, it's 'worse.' Instead of having one parental rolemodel simply being absent, which by definition one is; the child is presented with conflicting role models as to gender roles. The feminine and masculine roles are being played by the same gender. The child is left confused as to which is correct. This doesn't even cover the lack of example of how to interact with members of the opposite sex appropriately.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right.'
becoming abnormal?
see? this is where you lose me.
we are not "becoming abnormal"
do you believe that Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show was a real portrayal of our society or ANY society?
how about the fact that our country was founded on economic principles of slave ownership and indentured servitude, and that we took land from people that truly owned it, but didn't have written DEEDS?
there is no "norm", and never was, never will be. there is no such thing as moral values that we built our nation on. Societal relationships are built and forged in the fires of Chaos.
Norms are fiction taught to people that have no curoisity....
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
not at all, i'm saying that the survival of the fittest laws define our genome.
and the 10% + or - of all human populations that is same-sex oriented would have been selected out long ago if what you said was true.. it hasn't been...
and it has been around for a very long time...
If your'e looking at it from a purely genetic standpoint, Glass, I find nothing in your statement to argue with. However, man is more than the sum of his genetic heritage. He is free to make choices based on what he percieves and experiences. Genetic predisposition does not mandate his life's path. It may influence it, sometimes heavily; but it is still his to decide.
you made the value judgemnet
Perhaps. But that's my right. Just as it is your's to judge whether it's right or wrong for yourself. My opinion is just that. I am attempting to explain how I came to that conclusion just as Big and others are doing the same thing. That's the point of the discussion.
Mendelian principles and evolutionary development require that we have "deviations" from norm. They have to happen in order to evolve. Nature determines the success of that deviation.
Evolution in this direction can only take two courses.
One: asexual reproduction or Two: the death of the species due to lack of reproduction.
I don't think either really fits Darwin's model.
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
Why not? That's the whole point of my, well, point. We are taking the weight and importance out of the family unit. It's become all about ME and what MY needs are. Who cares what anyone else needs. Raising a family in a responsible way is hard. Abandoning them to find the next one night stand is easy. Easy is the new fad.
i don't think it's the media's fault tho....
Not solely, no. But they sure don't seem to be stemming the tide.
Quickly to Mach before I have to run.
From your post I feel you misunderstood my use of the term deviancy. I'm not talking about the physical sex involved, Mach. I'm talking about giving anything outside of the traditional family unit the same societal weight. By giving it the same recognition you aren't elevating it to the same plane; you're saying there is no plane to begin with. That it's all relevant and there is nothing absolute.
As to the morals part. It's not the imposition of one set of morals on another that's my concern. I couldn't even if I wanted to. Each is free to decide for themselves what they believe is right and wrong. My concern is what our society decides is right and wrong. In group dynamics, the majority has three choices. Either they can enforce their will on the group as a whole to maintain uniformity, they can allow the group to be governed by will of the minortiy causing strife because the majority doesn't agree, or finally they can abaondon all concensus and chaos ensues.
Morally, we as a culture have elected to do the last. Everyone is allowed to do whatever and nothing is sacred. We have moral chaos as a result.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: becoming abnormal?
see? this is where you lose me.
we are not "becoming abnormal"
do you believe that Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show was a real portrayal of our society or ANY society?
how about the fact that our country was founded on economic principles of slave ownership and indentured servitude, and that we took land from people that truly owned it, but didn't have written DEEDS?
there is no "norm", and never was, never will be. there is no such thing as moral values that we built our nation on. Societal relationships are built and forged in the fires of Chaos.
Norms are fiction taught to people that have no curoisity....
I mean this with all sincerity, Glass, so please try not to take undue offense.
How do you live in this world if that really is your point of view on it?
Leave It to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show and what they portrayed should be held up on pedastals and should be the goal we all strive for. The happy family that learns together and stands together through whatever comes should be imitated to all our best abilities. To allow anything else to supplant it is socitital suicide and we are feeling the effects of it right now.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, man is more than the sum of his genetic heritage. He is free to make choices based on what he percieves and experiences. Genetic predisposition does not mandate his life's path. It may influence it, sometimes heavily; but it is still his to decide.
nature VS nurture... hmmm.. let's ask Dick and Lynne Cheney. did they have "bad" DNA or did they screw up in their rearing? tuff questions huh?
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you live in this world if that really is your point of view on it?
simply. i humbly ask for the strength to change what i can, the patience to endure what i cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i agree in theory that kids should have their biological parents to raise them. it just doesn't happen much anymore in this country...
Why not? That's the whole point of my, well, point. We are taking the weight and importance out of the family unit. It's become all about ME and what MY needs are. Who cares what anyone else needs. Raising a family in a responsible way is hard. Abandoning them to find the next one night stand is easy. Easy is the new fad.
all i'm really saying is that it's it's not a new fad.
it's just that the history books in High School are censored...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To allow anything else to supplant it is socitital suicide and we are feeling the effects of it right now.
how did Rome fall? some people want to point to social insanity like Caligula's antics... they don't seem to realise that Caligula died about 300 years before Rome fell... Rome fell because they over-reached militarily... same with the USSR... that sounds more like our real problem right now to me...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bugs me about the "decline of the family" is the notion is that children MUST leave home and get their own place by x-age (18, 21, whatever). I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
quote:I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place
I think you'll be seeing this again soon. With gas at $4 and food prices skyrocketing, people will increasingly be sharing housing - just to survive!
Posts: 947 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Myself? I believe that they are the sad effects of our society abandoning the responsibility of family life for personal pleasure\selfishness. They are the resulting quagmire that comes from people saying that the 'norm' is abnormal. Slowly we've slipped from the 'free love' bologna of the 60's to 'whatever feels good.' Nothing is allowed to be held up as meaningful because everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is 'right."
Quote Tex:
What bugs me about the "decline of the family" is the notion is that children MUST leave home and get their own place by x-age (18, 21, whatever). I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Did the Realtors have something to do with this?
_________________________________________________
SeekingFreedom i think your point is well taken but there are other aspects of this also. The need to survive the economic times since the sixties has partly led to the changing of the value system, but many have used these trouble times to excuse them from the responsibilty that a family brings.
These changing economic times have brought the term quality time vs quantity time as a rational for the lack of time spent with their families and their behavior.
Tex that is one thing we see in many of the older Asian families as i am sure you well know. This will most likely change over time as they become Americanized.
With these changing times we are seeing more and more Grandparents having to raise there grandkids without much or any help from their kids. This is not a good sign but fortunately sometimes it might be a great alternative for the grandkids.
Posts: 2517 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place
I think you'll be seeing this again soon. With gas at $4 and food prices skyrocketing, people will increasingly be sharing housing - just to survive!
that would be nice...
but probably what we'll see instead is a sadder, greyer version, an older-person, scaled-down "hippie commune."
Family/blood won't be the common tie, but instead who's got any capital left, who can still perform...on a ladder, a roof, in a tree...in the kitchen, on the budget, etc.
Older guys and maybe a few older gals...who go in together on a bigger house with some space enough to make their last stand.
Hopeably, some of their various and assorted "real family" will visit, from time to time...
quote:With these changing times we are seeing more and more Grandparents having to raise there grandkids without much or any help from their kids. This is not a good sign but fortunately sometimes it might be a great alternative for the grandkids.
yup...cleave unto cleave...
that simply and strongly shows the value of grandparents/grandchildren.
We have, wrongly, imo, diverted from that valuable model.
posted
Glass, do you consider yourself a religious individual? The Serenity Prayer is usually seen as a supplication to God for assistance in troubled times.
Either way, back to your points.
nature VS nurture... hmmm.. let's ask Dick and Lynne Cheney. did they have "bad" DNA or did they screw up in their rearing? tuff questions huh?
No, and yes. Not from the angle I think you intended, but yes in that I don't know either them nor their daughter well enough to give you an opinion. I do concede that some people may have a genetic predisposition toward homophilia. I also believe that science has 'proven' that people can have predispositions toward substance addiction, logical dispositions and artistic excellence. None of these predetermine the individuals actions or career paths. They are simply genetic 'nudges' they choose to follow or not.
how did Rome fall?
Pick up The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire if you haven't already. They're probably the finest books on the subject ever written. I've got the abridged version, and Gibbon listed far more than merely military over extension as the causitive effect. Social degredation and civil fracturing feature prominently. Both of which we see right now along with your forementioned military issue.
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm with you one hundred percent on families. My brothers and I live within 20 minutes of our parents and last living grandparent. We were taught growing up that family takes care of family and we live by it. When one of us hit a rough spot economically, it was family they turned to, not welfare. The 'clan' mentality has kept us together and made sure all members are taken care of.
Iwish,
I can't say I don't understand the challenge of quantity of time devoted to family. But few can truly say they give all the time they could. I know I spend far too much time in front of this monitor that could\should be spent with the wife or children. One of the leaders of my church once said 'it's not the speed that we're traveling at that's so important, but moreso the direction.' If we're honestly trying to keep our families together and strong we will see results.
If we don't try...well, we can see where that's taking us can't we?
Posts: 635 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, do you consider yourself a religious individual? The Serenity Prayer is usually seen as a supplication to God for assistance in troubled times.
hmmmm.... i don't see why one would wait till they are in trouble for that prayer. wisdom is definitely in short supply in the world today...
-------------------- It's never a good idea to change horses on the way to the apocalypse. Posts: 27062 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: I liked the model we had for many, in which having grandparents *and* grandkids on the same place...(maybe not the same house, but on the same land or "compound," if you will)... was commonplace and even somewhat expected. Certainly, you didn't automatically dump the old folks and kick the kids out after high school or college...
Were not living in Little House on the Prairie days Tex lol Grandma/Granpa should of saved for retirement and if they did they would like to have some space from family... as for HS kids, they want to be more independent and if they can support themselves then why not? It will show them responsibility... to me it sounds like Ole Tex doesn't want daddy's lil girl to move away or for her not to care anymore about him when Tex is Ole...
-------------------- Money Never Sleeps Pal.
Greed, for the lack of a better word is GOOD. Posts: 3657 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
DNA or did they screw up in their rearing? tuff questions huh?![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)