Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:04:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> 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.
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 sound like a traditional model to me.
> I see nothing wrong with such a model-- in fact, I challenge you to present
> a more stable, successful one.
It must be accepted that we haven't yet had a good sample size of
"non-traditional" family models expressly because Conservatives work night and
day to prevent such unions from having an equal footing. Also, there's no
evidence to show that same-sex unions are inherently inclined to yield unstable
households. I grant that single-parent homes are problematic, but that's not
necessarily due to the single-parenthood as much as the fact of a single-income,
so the problem is economic rather than familial in that case.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
