To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 22461
22460  |  22462
Subject: 
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:36:23 GMT
Viewed: 
917 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:

   I would suggest that the common (in the US) notion of the “traditional family” hardly ever existed at all except on TV and in the blurry nostalgia of the people.

And I agree that we’d all be a lot better off if that insidious fiction were abandoned.

Clarification on what you mean exactly by the term “traditional family” would be appreciated, Dave!

Fair enough. How about this: The idea of a happy, non-dysfunctional, financially secure, single-income, white, Christian family with at least one son and one daughter, and often with a grandparent in residence. If you look at almost any family-based publications (cookbooks, appliance instructions, Reader’s Digest, etc.) in the US from post-WWII through about 1970, you’ll see an overwhelming preference for this family model, with the perhaps notable exception of My Three Sons.

Anyway, since I’m merely quoting the term that is endlessly reused by Conservative agenda-pushers, I make no apology for failing to define it with razor-sharp clarity. Instead, I would ask those Conservatives to define the term and to identify when, exactly, the “traditional family” existed as they claim it to have existed.

When a conservative uses the term “traditional family”, I believe that they are referring to a 1 male, 1 women married household. This model can be traced all the way back to the teaching of Jesus. Number of kids is inconsequential; financially security is an ideal as is single-income. I see nothing wrong with such a model-- in fact, I challenge you to present a more stable, successful one.

JOHN



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
 
(...) Let's see: 1. Mary, unemployed, but that's okay 2. Joseph, employed, but later disappears from all record 3. James, child by marriage 4. Jesus, child by a contemporaneous extramarital union who grows up to be executed for sedition Doesn't (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
 
(...) Fair enough. How about this: The idea of a happy, non-dysfunctional, financially secure, single-income, white, Christian family with at least one son and one daughter, and often with a grandparent in residence. If you look at almost any (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR