Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[9sublime]

Of course it is. What made you think it isn't?

So by that logic adopted children shouldn't have the rights of biological children when it comes to family issues, and brother-in-laws, mother-in-laws etc. are meaningless, not to mention the fact that a husband and wife are not genetically related.

Not everything about family is procreating and genetics numinus - just because we live in an age where the nuclear family is encouraged doesn't make it the only way family can be.

Marriage, in the same vein, is not all about creating children.

 

[Coyote]

You can create family...or you can pro-create family.

Either way, it's family.

 

[numinus]

So by that logic adopted children shouldn't have the rights of biological children when it comes to family issues,

Why do you persist on the exception superseding the rule? Adoption is possible when there is no next of kin.

and brother-in-laws, mother-in-laws etc. are meaningless, not to mention the fact that a husband and wife are not genetically related.

A marriage is supposed to be a UNION. The ritual signifies two people being joined AS ONE.

Not everything about family is procreating and genetics numinus - just because we live in an age where the nuclear family is encouraged doesn't make it the only way family can be.

Marriage, in the same vein, is not all about creating children.

And what is it about, eh? Promoting a defective, politically correct idea that a family is what anyone wants it to be? That the fundamental group unit of society is some nebulous, pretend human bond concocted to satisfy one's sexual preference -- ANY sexual preference?

No thank you, sublime.

 

[9sublime]

I'm just being awkward to be honest.

I think gays should have the right to union giving them the same rights as married couples, but it doesn't have to be called marriage if the right wing nuts care so much about petty semantic details of what the word entails.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've tried to discuss with you, Nums, but since you are simply pushing a religious agenda there is no point in continuing. Love makes a family--not whatever religious dogma and pseudo-scientific silliness you pandered about.

Like most religious folks, this is about denying things to others that you claim for yourself--basically it's just more simpleminded bigotry. You chop logic and parse words to exclude and in so doing you scorn the very basis of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that there were two commandments that superceded all others and I note for the record here that you are going against them both with your narrow, bigoted attitude. May God forgive you.

 

[vyo476]

Are you suggesting that the definition of family I gave does not include the unfortunate circumstance of a mother's death?

I suppose it does, since your definition states that the conjugal relationship creates the family; the mother's death thereafter wouldn't affect the family, which already exists.

I grew up with 3 cousins when my aunt died and my uncle left the country for a better-paying job overseas. I am more comfortable with them than my own brother and sister but they are still my cousins -- and my parents, their aunt and uncle.

Props for that.

Adoption is a last resort, when there is no next of kin.

Even if the adoptive parents would make better parents than the next of kin?

Hypothetical situation: A child's (let's call him Joey, age 4) parents are killed in a car crash. He has one aunt, who has a documented problem with alcohol and other substances. Would it be preferable to ship a little boy off to live with his deadbeat aunt or to find a caring, well-adjusted couple that are looking to adopt? And why?

Runaways and orphans need to be with their kin. Would you think it ok if somebody took your child as their own (without exerting any effort to contact you) if the child ran away from home?

The only reason I see for passing children to next of kin is the emotional tie between family members. If my parents had died when I was still too young to look after myself, my mother's family would have been contacted - which would have been terrible, my mother and her two siblings have been estranged my entire life. I'd been sent to live with people I barely know personally but learned to greatly dislike through the few (highly unfortunate) stories my mother told me. In that situation I think I would have preferred an adoptive family - maybe a friend's family or someone my parents were close to. The only thing tying me to my aunt and uncle was dislike and genetics.

I am not preventing anyone from acting as surrogate family to another person, if that is what you are suggesting.

I'm not suggesting that you would prevent it altogether; I just see surrogate family as equal to biological family, and I was wondering why you don't.

 

[numinus]

I'm just being awkward to be honest.

I think gays should have the right to union giving them the same rights as married couples, but it doesn't have to be called marriage if the right wing nuts care so much about petty semantic details of what the word entails.

As you wish.

 

[numinus]

I've tried to discuss with you, Nums, but since you are simply pushing a religious agenda there is no point in continuing. Love makes a family--not whatever religious dogma and pseudo-scientific silliness you pandered about.

Like most religious folks, this is about denying things to others that you claim for yourself--basically it's just more simpleminded bigotry. You chop logic and parse words to exclude and in so doing you scorn the very basis of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that there were two commandments that superceded all others and I note for the record here that you are going against them both with your narrow, bigoted attitude. May God forgive you.

LOL.

What did jesus say to the prostitute about to be stoned to death -- after chastising the crowd?

Sin no more.

 

[numinus]

Even if the adoptive parents would make better parents than the next of kin?

Hypothetical situation: A child's (let's call him Joey, age 4) parents are killed in a car crash. He has one aunt, who has a documented problem with alcohol and other substances. Would it be preferable to ship a little boy off to live with his deadbeat aunt or to find a caring, well-adjusted couple that are looking to adopt? And why?

The only reason I see for passing children to next of kin is the emotional tie between family members. If my parents had died when I was still too young to look after myself, my mother's family would have been contacted - which would have been terrible, my mother and her two siblings have been estranged my entire life. I'd been sent to live with people I barely know personally but learned to greatly dislike through the few (highly unfortunate) stories my mother told me. In that situation I think I would have preferred an adoptive family - maybe a friend's family or someone my parents were close to. The only thing tying me to my aunt and uncle was dislike and genetics.

I'm not suggesting that you would prevent it altogether; I just see surrogate family as equal to biological family, and I was wondering why you don't.

A surrogate family may be valid but CANNOT EQUAL the nuclear family.

If you say otherwise -- for whatever reason -- you are in fact stating a condition by which the RIGHT OF MOTHERHOOD IS DEFEASIBLE.

All sorts of reasons and justifications therefore, may be used to separate a child from his mother and his natural family against the very principle stated in the universal declaration of human rights.

 

[Coyote]

A surrogate family may be valid but CANNOT EQUAL the nuclear family.

If you say otherwise -- for whatever reason -- you are in fact stating a condition by which the RIGHT OF MOTHERHOOD IS DEFEASIBLE.

All sorts of reasons and justifications therefore, may be used to separate a child from his mother and his natural family against the very principle stated in the universal declaration of human rights.

Whoa...I don't see this.

The nuclear family is one man married to one woman.

What makes that more logical then one man several women; one woman, several men or a plethora of each producing a family?

Secondly, look at the following portions of that very declaration:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.​

Would not keeping a child within it's natural family if it was an abusive situation not violate those? Does the "right to family" trump those? I don't think so.


Thirdly, more interestingly....

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.​

The wording of this portion does not prohibit gay marriage. It also does not say "procreate" a family, but rather "found" a family.

It makes an interesting distinction.

 

[numinus]

Whoa...I don't see this.

The nuclear family is one man married to one woman.

What makes that more logical then one man several women; one woman, several men or a plethora of each producing a family?

I apologize. Poligamy, strictly, is an extended family structure, not nuclear. It is however, a traditional family unit based on conjugal union(s).

Secondly, look at the following portions of that very declaration:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.​

Would not keeping a child within it's natural family if it was an abusive situation not violate those? Does the "right to family" trump those? I don't think so.

You need to look at the rights of children. It states there the conditions by which the state may interfere with a woman's right to motherhood.

Thirdly, more interestingly....

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.​

The wording of this portion does not prohibit gay marriage. It also does not say "procreate" a family, but rather "found" a family.

Since when is a gay marriage thought of as a 'NATURAL and fundamental group unit'?

It makes an interesting distinction.

The distinction is made (in view of social anthropology) to include extended families -- not gay unions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL.

What did jesus say to the prostitute about to be stoned to death -- after chastising the crowd?

Sin no more.

But that comment to her wasn't based on what He said were the two most important commandments in the Bible, was it? It always intrigues me how Bible-beaters skip over the most important things (according to Jesus) and focus on the things that support their own personal agendas and feelings.

For the record let us also note that Jesus isn't reported to have said anything about the man involved with the prostitute either--so where's the Godly justice in that? She was supposed to be stoned to death and the guy gets a free-pass to go home?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A surrogate family may be valid but CANNOT EQUAL the nuclear family.

Captain Trips argues much of the same stuff you do and he finally admitted that he believed that if married heterosexual people were not given "special privileges" (his words) then they would not continue to marry and raise children. I suspect that you may feel much the same way even if you won't say it in so many words.

What is it that makes you so adamant in denying equality to anyone who isn't just like you? I suspect that it's fear, fear that you won't be special anymore if everyone gets to be equal with you under the law. You've lived a privileged life under US laws that give you rights denied to others based on nothing but religious dogma. Your idea that there can only be one kind of family that reigns supreme over all others is total religious twaddle in light of the many kinds of family combinations that have been embraced by Christianity down through its history.

Jesus advocated an inclusive, non-judgmental society, but religious bigots have been scorning Him and His silly ideas for centuries. When was the last time that the majority of Christian churches actually advocated turning the other cheek? Or returning good for evil? Or loving others as ourselves? Instead we have the Nums of the world proclaiming that only people like themselves can ever be truly "EQUAL".

 

[numinus]

But that comment to her wasn't based on what He said were the two most important commandments in the Bible, was it? It always intrigues me how Bible-beaters skip over the most important things (according to Jesus) and focus on the things that support their own personal agendas and feelings.

What nonsense! The two most important commandments are love god and love your neighbor.

In what ridiculous ethical standard is prostitution a form of love, hmmm? Or was it sexual relations with a married man? Perhaps it is the same ethical standard you are promoting through homosexual marriages?

For the record let us also note that Jesus isn't reported to have said anything about the man involved with the prostitute either--so where's the Godly justice in that? She was supposed to be stoned to death and the guy gets a free-pass to go home?

I believe he was more interested in condemning sin -- not individuals. But feel free to turn everything into a gender issue.

 

[numinus]

Captain Trips argues much of the same stuff you do and he finally admitted that he believed that if married heterosexual people were not given "special privileges" (his words) then they would not continue to marry and raise children. I suspect that you may feel much the same way even if you won't say it in so many words.

The family is the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY. Suspect all you wish. It doesn't change this basic principle.

What is it that makes you so adamant in denying equality to anyone who isn't just like you?

If I were denying equality, then I would insist that everyone become heterosexual. Is it too much to ask you use some of that gray matter between your ears?

I suspect that it's fear, fear that you won't be special anymore if everyone gets to be equal with you under the law. You've lived a privileged life under US laws that give you rights denied to others based on nothing but religious dogma.

I do not live in the us. You do not know me so I would appreciate it if you restrict your opinions to things that you know.

And once again, the argument I am making is based on the universal declaration of human rights and the rights of children -- not some religious dogma.

Your idea that there can only be one kind of family that reigns supreme over all others is total religious twaddle in light of the many kinds of family combinations that have been embraced by Christianity down through its history.

All of which are based on the conjugal union of man and woman.

Jesus advocated an inclusive, non-judgmental society, but religious bigots have been scorning Him and His silly ideas for centuries. When was the last time that the majority of Christian churches actually advocated turning the other cheek? Or returning good for evil? Or loving others as ourselves? Instead we have the Nums of the world proclaiming that only people like themselves can ever be truly "EQUAL".

You are ignorant and foolish if you are unaware of the countless missionaries flung in god knows where, risking life and limb and a comfortable life, just to make an infinitessimal difference on god's green earth.

You absolutely have no right belittling their efforts and painting these good people in a bad light just so you can feel good about yourself and your ridiculous infatuation with another man's anal passage.