Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:50:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1141 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
Ahem-- speaking of Relevant Difference, I think it was a little unfair to choose
a rather unique family in history:-)
Anyway, I referred to Jesus’ teaching:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,
‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.‘”
Matthew 19:3-6 (NAS version)
| |
| |
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.
|
Questions:
If you recognize same-sex marriage, do you also recognize 3-way marriages?
4-way? Between siblings? Between father/mother and legal age son/daughter? I
don’t see how you can logically draw the line at same-sex marriages. Why don’t
we cut to the chase here? As RM suggested elsewhere, aren’t you really just in
favor of government not recognizing any unions?
| |
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.
|
I strongly disagree, and I’m surprised you would argue so. Morally healthy
families in poverty will turn out okay, just as morally bankrupt wealthy ones
will turn out disasterous. Money is no panacea.
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
