100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Prop 8/anti-gay argument... Is the earth UNDER populated? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The basic thing of this is.......as the family unit goes, so goes society along with it. And.......as sex has been trivialized, casualized, and in general made as no big deal, the family has suffered because of it. I don't think it's any coincidence, that.....since around the time of the sexual revolution, the divorce rate has risen to where it's now at around 50 percent. In order for a civilization to survive and thrive, there needs to be some absolutes. What we've done in the last 40 years is changed them to where are there really aren't any left anymore, and we're suffering because of it. In the case of marriage, consider the fact that first off strictly from a heterosexual standpoint, men are taught anymore they don't need the woman for anything beyond sex, while women are taught not to trust men because of how many men treat sex and women in such a casual, objectifying way. In turn......this makes it harder for real relationships to foster, if so many men basically have no need for women outside of getting off, and the women distrust the men, and are even told themselves they don't need them. Then even the ones that DO get married or involved and have kids, end up doing so for the wrong reasons, and don't have the patience or self control to see things through more often then not, leading to break up after break up, and broken home after broken home. This causes the kids to suffer and sort of be on their own with not a lot of guidance because of the mistakes of their parents. So already if you want something real it is very hard to find anymore, and when you factor homosexuality into the mix it makes it even harder, as people who otherwise may have been available to you just aren't. There's a saying, if it isn't broke then don't fix it. The marriage and family system did not need changing, but we have changed it anyway and now we are seeing the consequences of that. I agree, family dynamics have already changed far too much,, I think too in turn as the family has fell apart so have morals, there's not that stable group to go to anymore for guidance, and for love for that matter you know? So we sort of get thrown to the wolves. I know that happened to me, everything I've learned that matters in the world I really had to learn on my own, with my parents not marrying and being somewhat ignorant to things. we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, Same here. I really think too that.....a child growing up needs a balance. A man and woman each offer special qualities unique to themselves. The man can't offer what the woman does, nor can the woman offer what a man does. The man is sort of the protector and provider, whereas the woman is more the nurturer. To be well rounded, I truly think a child needs a mix of both sides, so that they don't end up either overly physical and masculine, or overly emotional and feminine. That isn't to say a child can't make it ok with one parent, BUT it makes it a little more difficult I think if you only get one side as opposed to both. again realizing I am in the minority, as a single parent, I TOTALLY agree...it was meant to be done with a mother and father Yeah, it's really difficult on your own isn't it? more of a struggle, for sure,,,, but I think we are off topic,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The basic thing of this is.......as the family unit goes, so goes society along with it. And.......as sex has been trivialized, casualized, and in general made as no big deal, the family has suffered because of it. I don't think it's any coincidence, that.....since around the time of the sexual revolution, the divorce rate has risen to where it's now at around 50 percent. In order for a civilization to survive and thrive, there needs to be some absolutes. What we've done in the last 40 years is changed them to where are there really aren't any left anymore, and we're suffering because of it. In the case of marriage, consider the fact that first off strictly from a heterosexual standpoint, men are taught anymore they don't need the woman for anything beyond sex, while women are taught not to trust men because of how many men treat sex and women in such a casual, objectifying way. In turn......this makes it harder for real relationships to foster, if so many men basically have no need for women outside of getting off, and the women distrust the men, and are even told themselves they don't need them. Then even the ones that DO get married or involved and have kids, end up doing so for the wrong reasons, and don't have the patience or self control to see things through more often then not, leading to break up after break up, and broken home after broken home. This causes the kids to suffer and sort of be on their own with not a lot of guidance because of the mistakes of their parents. So already if you want something real it is very hard to find anymore, and when you factor homosexuality into the mix it makes it even harder, as people who otherwise may have been available to you just aren't. There's a saying, if it isn't broke then don't fix it. The marriage and family system did not need changing, but we have changed it anyway and now we are seeing the consequences of that. I agree, family dynamics have already changed far too much,, I think too in turn as the family has fell apart so have morals, there's not that stable group to go to anymore for guidance, and for love for that matter you know? So we sort of get thrown to the wolves. I know that happened to me, everything I've learned that matters in the world I really had to learn on my own, with my parents not marrying and being somewhat ignorant to things. we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, Same here. I really think too that.....a child growing up needs a balance. A man and woman each offer special qualities unique to themselves. The man can't offer what the woman does, nor can the woman offer what a man does. The man is sort of the protector and provider, whereas the woman is more the nurturer. To be well rounded, I truly think a child needs a mix of both sides, so that they don't end up either overly physical and masculine, or overly emotional and feminine. That isn't to say a child can't make it ok with one parent, BUT it makes it a little more difficult I think if you only get one side as opposed to both. again realizing I am in the minority, as a single parent, I TOTALLY agree...it was meant to be done with a mother and father Yeah, it's really difficult on your own isn't it? more of a struggle, for sure,,,, but I think we are off topic,,lol Just a little bit, not to mention all our own it appears lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The basic thing of this is.......as the family unit goes, so goes society along with it. And.......as sex has been trivialized, casualized, And therefore we should prevent people from forming families! Where we find couples who love each other, we must stop them from forming family units. around the time of the sexual revolution, the divorce rate has risen to where it's now at around 50 percent.
Odd how there is a correlation between divorce rates and whether a state has a ban on gay marriage. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html Why would this be? Might religious repression increase divorce rates? and when you factor homosexuality into the mix it makes it even harder, as people who otherwise may have been available to you just aren't.
...ummm... what? Are you worried because you might fall in love with a woman who turns out to be a lesbian? I mean, if you really want to maximize the number of mutual compatible couples, maybe you ought to advocate bisexuality. There's a saying, if it isn't broke then don't fix it. The marriage and family system did not need changing.... No, actually, many people did find it to be broken, and thats part of why it has changed so much. Westerners criticize the ***-backward sexism of some Islamic societies, as if our great-grandparents weren't participating in some of the very same repressive social customs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think too in turn as the family has fell apart so have morals, there's not that stable group to go to anymore for guidance, and for love for that matter you know? And thats why we should prevent gay couples from forming stable groups. We want less stability and guidance, and love. Down with gay marriage! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 06/17/10 02:16 PM
|
|
The basic thing of this is.......as the family unit goes, so goes society along with it. And.......as sex has been trivialized, casualized, And therefore we should prevent people from forming families! Where we find couples who love each other, we must stop them from forming family units. around the time of the sexual revolution, the divorce rate has risen to where it's now at around 50 percent.
Odd how there is a correlation between divorce rates and whether a state has a ban on gay marriage. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html Why would this be? Might religious repression increase divorce rates? and when you factor homosexuality into the mix it makes it even harder, as people who otherwise may have been available to you just aren't.
...ummm... what? Are you worried because you might fall in love with a woman who turns out to be a lesbian? I mean, if you really want to maximize the number of mutual compatible couples, maybe you ought to advocate bisexuality. There's a saying, if it isn't broke then don't fix it. The marriage and family system did not need changing.... No, actually, many people did find it to be broken, and thats part of why it has changed so much. Westerners criticize the ***-backward sexism of some Islamic societies, as if our great-grandparents weren't participating in some of the very same repressive social customs. 1. How can you really form a family unit if you can't have kids by natural means? You can still have a family I suppose via adoption and what not, but it's not the same as a naturally born family, created, started and fostered entirely by the couple. 2. That's a rather big assumption don't you think? The two cases have very little in common with each other. Oh and also, could it not be that......because gays can legally marry in states where the rate went down, those couples have an impact on the numbers? 3. Actually bisexuality would be worse, because that cheapens what it means to have a committed relationship. 4. Ah but just who exactly pushed for the changes, or set the wheels in motion but the media. Remember, the media is and always has been incredibly powerful, and it has the ability to and often can influence behavior and public opinion for their own interests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a child growing up needs a balance. A man and woman each offer special qualities unique to themselves. The man can't offer what the woman does, nor can the woman offer what a man does. The man is sort of the protector and provider, whereas the woman is more the nurturer. To be well rounded, I truly think a child needs a mix of both sides, so that they don't end up either overly physical and masculine, or overly emotional and feminine.
And now the truth comes out. I love how the anti-gay-marriage people tend so often tend to have these other bigotries as well. Men are protectors and providers? Women are nurturers? And each can't offer what the other does? So women can't protect and provide? And men can't nurture? Were you home schooled? And you don't want children to end up overly masculine or feminine? Why? Because, in your opinion, there is a particular range of masculinity and femininity which is 'acceptable'? I would agree that having two male parents or two female parents will tend to provide a better balance than having one parent, since it diversifies the range of personality traits the child is exposed to....except you don't appear to follow your line of thought to this conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I just still want to know where they put the THINGIE!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. That's a rather big assumption don't you think?
YES, absolutely. I do not conclude that, I simply throw that out there as something to think about. The two cases have very little in common with each other.
Um.... there is a correlation, which doesn't prove causation - but which is interesting nonetheless. Oh and also, could it not be that......because gays can legally marry in states where the rate went down, those couples have an impact on the numbers?
Oh! So you think that maybe allowing gays to marry decreases divorce rates, then? I'm doing this rather quickly (skimming/typing) - have I missed something? 1. How can you really form a family unit if you can't have kids by natural means? You can still have a family I suppose via adoption and what not, but it's not the same as a naturally born family, created, started and fostered entirely by the couple.
I love it when you are so open about your prejudices. Too bad for all the couples who can't have children by natural means...they are just intrinsically 'less' of a family in your eyes. 3. Actually bisexuality would be worse, because that cheapens what it means to have a committed relationship.
Really? Says who? You really think that bisexuality cheapens the meaning of a committed relationship? The bisexual women I've known were far, far more committed in their relationships than the majority of heterosexual women and men that I've known. 4. Ah but just who exactly pushed for the changes, or set the wheels in motion but the media. Remember, the media is and always has been incredibly powerful, and it has the ability to and often can influence behavior and public opinion for their own interests.
Actually, there is some basis for agreement between us here, as I do believe there is a lot of evil being done by people who wish to sell us our entertainment, by preying on our basest desires. Yet, your words smell like a gross oversimplification of a complex social evolution - one which denies the flaws in the old ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 06/17/10 03:06 PM
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? this is why I said I am in the minority,,I am referring to how, in the nature of MAN, it takes a man and a woman to create a life, and very logically, ideally would involve that man and woman which created it to be involved in raising it,, marriage, as I see it anyhow, is a way to promote that when a male and woman make a commitment (which could lead to a child being born) , they take it seriously enough to have it legally aknowledged and that they are encouraged to stick together by having certain legal benefits and discouraged from breaking apart by having certain legal disadvantages,,,, marriage is a way (not a guarantee) to protect children by reinforcing the idea that their CREATORS , or parents, stay together and provide for them in one united home I realize it does not guarantee that , but I do see it as an attempt to PROMOTE it,,, but I am not sure what would be being promoted by having this same venue for same sex couples, as they are not potentially going to become anything more than the two people who enter into the relationship,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just still want to know where they put the THINGIE!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? this is why I said I am in the minority,,I am referring to how, in the nature of MAN, it takes a man and a woman to create a life, and very logically, ideally would involve that man and woman which created it to be involved in raising it,, Which is part of the issue with removing kids from that unit. Not to say other kids who haven't had good parents don't deserve decent ones or anything like that. But it's a little different then if they are being raised by those that created them, and gave birth to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? this is why I said I am in the minority,,I am referring to how, in the nature of MAN, it takes a man and a woman to create a life, and very logically, ideally would involve that man and woman which created it to be involved in raising it,, Which is part of the issue with removing kids from that unit. Not to say other kids who haven't had good parents don't deserve decent ones or anything like that. But it's a little different then if they are being raised by those that created them, and gave birth to them. yes, too bad its not foolproof, because we can always find examples of where the natural parents dont want or care for their children,, and those examples will usually be used to argue AGAINST promoting the 'natural' family unit,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? this is why I said I am in the minority,,I am referring to how, in the nature of MAN, it takes a man and a woman to create a life, and very logically, ideally would involve that man and woman which created it to be involved in raising it,, Which is part of the issue with removing kids from that unit. Not to say other kids who haven't had good parents don't deserve decent ones or anything like that. But it's a little different then if they are being raised by those that created them, and gave birth to them. yes, too bad its not foolproof, because we can always find examples of where the natural parents dont want or care for their children,, and those examples will usually be used to argue AGAINST promoting the 'natural' family unit,,, Yeah, no argument I guess is foolproof in that regard is it? :\ I sent you a message BTW if you haven't seen it yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow.
And that is all I am going to say. Oh there are plenty of things I COULD say. But I won't. Just wow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,, MsHarmony, didn't you mean to say "Biblical" order, rather than "natural" order? Because - if you are talking about a 'natural' order - how do you know what that natural order is? On what do you base your opinions of what the 'natural' order is? this is why I said I am in the minority, So we are speaking of a personal opinion, then? Sometimes, when people refer the 'natural' way of doing things, they presume to be calling upon an authority other than personal opinion. I would say that death is natural for all humans, as I consider it a matter of fact and and not opinion that all humans will die. Also, it normally takes an egg and a sperm to make a zygote, so I agree that: ,I am referring to how, in the nature of MAN, it takes a man and a woman to create a life,
These views are based in nature. However, the next step: and very logically, ideally would involve that man and woman which created it to be involved in raising it,,
This is completely an opinion, and I'm curious how this might or might be related to the 'natural' way to do things. I think it might be better to have more than two people involved - bringing elders (possibly grandparents) and closely involved, accessory adults (possibly aunts and uncles) would make for a better approach to child rearing, but I know thats my opinion, and isn't a matter of 'what is natural' and 'what is not natural'. marriage, as I see it anyhow, is a way to promote that when a male and woman make a commitment (which could lead to a child being born) , they take it seriously enough to have it legally aknowledged and that they are encouraged to stick together by having certain legal benefits and discouraged from breaking apart by having certain legal disadvantages,,,, marriage is a way (not a guarantee) to protect children by reinforcing the idea that their CREATORS , or parents, stay together and provide for them in one united home I absolutely respect the opinions you've given here. I don't see them as being based inherently on 'nature'. Some people think 'natural' means 'found amongst non-human animals' - and we find a variety of child rearing techniques used amongst non-human animals - some similar to what you advocate, and some very different. promoted by having this same venue for same sex couples, as they are not potentially going to become anything more than the two people who enter into the relationship,,,
If anyone were to see this as a basis for banning same sex marriage, then perhaps they should consider banning adoption altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, too bad its not foolproof, because we can always find examples of where the natural parents dont want or care for their children,, and those examples will usually be used to argue AGAINST promoting the 'natural' family unit,,, It isn't that these examples are 'being used to argue against' it - its that these examples are real, and many of the devotees of the 'natural family unit' ideology are in denial of reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. And that is all I am going to say. Oh there are plenty of things I COULD say. But I won't. Just wow. Don't be shy! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 06/17/10 04:49 PM
|
|
yes, too bad its not foolproof, because we can always find examples of where the natural parents dont want or care for their children,, and those examples will usually be used to argue AGAINST promoting the 'natural' family unit,,, It isn't that these examples are 'being used to argue against' it - its that these examples are real, and many of the devotees of the 'natural family unit' ideology are in denial of reality. I am aware these things are real. I am aware there are single parent and dual parent and same sex and opposite sex homes where neglect occurs, I am aware children are abandoned and adopted and fostered. I am aware of all these UNFORTUNATE realities, but none of them change my opinion that we dont need to go further than supporting the union which brings forth these children and their potential and that we need to get BACK to promoting it in a big way,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. And that is all I am going to say. Oh there are plenty of things I COULD say. But I won't. Just wow. Don't be shy!
Not being shy. I want to keep my posting abilities. |
|
|
|
|
