Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:03:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would
you assert the foundation of our society is?
|
No one thing!!!
|
And....?
|
You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I
guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of
society. Silly me.
|
All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think
it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they?
| |
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the fabric of marriage as a “sacred”
institution.
|
Excuse me? It would completely change it!
|
It would improve it!
|
Upon what exactly do you base your assertion?
| |
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the “foundation” of society.
|
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
I think you left out some of the respect due.
|
What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you have absolutely no
basis. You are talking about the unknown as if it were known.
| |
| |
| |
We would
just be normallizing relations with one of the many groups that are harmed
dramatically and daily by the majority in this country.
|
“Harmed dramatically”??? Please! What in the world are you talking about?
|
Subjugating citizens to a second-class status,
|
Say again? Cites, please.
Which RIGHTS? Cites, please.
| |
and
further emphasizing the scant difference between them and the norm based on a
difference that harms no one,
|
Do you claim to know the social and psychological ramifications of teaching
little Suzy and Jimmy in Kindergarten that they can marry a boy or a girl? Or 2
boys and 1 girl, or any other combination you can think of?
| |
is genetic and unpreventable,
|
Cites, please.
| |
and trivial is
dramatic harm. What did you think I was talking about?
|
I have no idea.
| |
| |
| |
| |
I didn’t say it was the norm, just the foundation.
|
So nuclear families were the norm for sixty of the 1000 years of our
(western) culture’s history and you get to call it the foundation? Do you
hear how dumb that sounds?
|
What sounds dumb is the assertion that the nuclear family is a construct
dating back 60 years. The institution of marriage is very old. I’m not
sure what exactly you are talking about.
|
100 years ago, most people lived in family units with at least three
generations present.
|
Many still do today. I don’t consider that a valid variation from the nuclear
family structure model.
| |
That is now quite uncommon (though certainly not
unheard of) in the US. The nuclear family replaced family clans about 70-100
years ago as the norm. Since then, it has evolved on to the next step.
| |
| |
| |
What does govern animal behavior then, Tom? Reason? Ethics? Religion?
|
Satisfaction of preference just like ours.
|
So you are claiming that animals have emotions? Any proof of that?
|
I hadn’t claimed that, but I’m certainly willing to. What proof would you
accept?
|
Any scientific study, for starters.
| |
Animals (even those as simple as house cats -- who I happen to think
have a much broader mode of emotional expression than do dogs) clearly have
moods, in the commonly understood human sense. How could moods be possible
without emotion? Just instinct?
|
Without scientific study? How about anthropomorphizing.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate. (...) OK, I'll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is "founded" upon any thing(s) (by (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. Silly me. (...) It would improve it! (...) I think you left out some of the respect due. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 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
|
|
|
|
