The "traditional" family (dinosaur, beliefs, homosexuals, evolve)

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Victor

I don’t know where everyone lives or their background, but where I come from it is becoming blasphemy to talk about the traditional family. Although empirical studies support me on this, I did need them to tell me that fatherless homes have a detrimental affect on the lives of children. Motherless homes have the same affect. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the Beatles term of “all you need is love”. Which I agree with but try crunching out what they mean by that and you will see how different people understand that.

Is it just because it is a single parent home, or do homes with two parents of the same gender have the same effect? If there is a negative effect on children growing up with gay parents, is it because of the parents, or is it a result of social stigma (as in, the child thinks there's something wrong with him because his family is "different")?

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Booko

Speaking as an old fart, I'll just say that some things touted in the name of "progress" turn out, in time, to be destructive.

While I think we've lost a lot of shopworn ideas that needed to be lost, I also think we've tossed out a bit of the baby with the bathwater in our mad rush for "progress."

All of which is completely unrelated to the topic of same-sex relationships, by the way.

I know it's a little bit off topic, but I do agree with you that progress isn't always good. But, what I'm saying is that it's probably just as bad to tout "holding on to tradition" as the only option. I personally think that we should consider things on their own merit, rather than label them as "good" or "bad" because they either go against tradition or progress. At the same time I realize that's not always possible.

[Reverend Rick]

Children have minds of their own.

An athletic father has a son who wants to take up violin and has no interest in sports should be able to so.

A vegetarian couple has a son who wants to go hunting.

A right wing Christian couple has a Pagan daughter.

A same sexed couple raises a Christian conservative minister.

Parenthood does not always work out like you thought it would.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Well, what can a father or mother teach a child that the other can't?

I cannot teach my son what it means to be a man as effectively as a man can, because I am not a man, I don't operate like a man, and I don't think like men do.

I can, however, tell him that if does certain "manly" things to his future wife like forget her birthday, he will be in deep doo doo, because she and I and his sister will gang up on him. I am typically armed with a French chef knife or rolling pin while delivering this parental warning.

Do children who grow up in single parent, or with gay parents of the opposite sex have a skewed gender perception?

The research shows difficulties are more likely when boys grow up in situations with little or no useful male involvement. That *can* be a same sex or single-mother issue, but it's hardly reserved to those cases. A workaholic or emotionally-absent father in a "traditional" family has the same potential for problems.

Do those children grow up not knowing how to function socially or physically as a male or female?

Sometimes, yes.

What does a parent teach children about these things that a parent of the opposite sex doesn't have the capacity to teach? What exactly makes it more work?

The most important lessons children learn from their parents is by their example.

[CelticRavenwolf]

Originally Posted by Victor

For me, it’s never been a matter of dissolution of the traditional family. Although if it were a reality, I’d certainly be concerned. Truth be told and perhaps no surprise to many, I’m in love with the so called traditional family. I don’t and won’t shy away from it either. I mention that because I’m always warned about the religious right and their propaganda in it’s support of it.

I don’t know where everyone lives or their background, but where I come from it is becoming blasphemy to talk about the traditional family. Although empirical studies support me on this, I did need them to tell me that fatherless homes have a detrimental affect on the lives of children. Motherless homes have the same affect. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the Beatles term of “all you need is love”. Which I agree with but try crunching out what they mean by that and you will see how different people understand that.

Hear hear Victor!

I remember when I was a little kid the first divorce I encountered was the parents of a friend in grade 4. We all said "wow! Your parents are getting a divorce?"

By the time I got to high school people would say to me "wow! Your parents are still together?"

I think the traditional family is a fine ideal, and it angers to see how little respect people treat marriage with, and how readily they divorce, that people make it harder than it needs to be by sheer ignorance and selfishness. A little common sense would do more to saving the traditional family than allowing gays to marry. They don't threaten the traditional family. Stupid decisions, divorce, and having children to "save" a marriage are destructive to traditional families.

But still I say unto ye: that if two people love each other enough to devote their lives to one another and raise children, props to them, whoever they are.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Booko

All quite true, MaddLlama, but it's hard to make a case that same-sex relationships were ever part of what's considered a "traditional" family.

Which I think was one of the points of the person you quoted in the OP.

It's not really a strong argument to say "it's bad and shouldn't happen because we've never done it before". How do you know it's bad until you try it?

Honestly, if there were something destructive to society about allowing for something other than heterosexual marriages, I wouldn't expect to see the effects for a generation or two at the earliest anyway.

Do you think it has the potential to be destructive?
I know you're not against the idea, but I hear so many conservative arguments about how it would be destructive, but I have never once heard any tell me how it would be destructive.
Can you be creative and try to maybe extrapolate what would happen, say, 30 years from now if we let gay people get married?

Besides, I don't focus on homosexuality as a problem in society, as I think we heteros have done a bang up job of screwing up things in a MUCH more major way than the few homosexuals could ever hope to do.

Hahaha, yes I agree with you on that one.

Seriously, if I wanted to spend my efforts on sexual moral issues -- I'd put them all toward getting serious about hetero relationships and preventing divorce, which can be very devastating to children, both emotionally and financially.

I think so too - I think we should be focusing on that, and ensuring that people are really ready to make that sort of commitment before they get married, and I do think it should be more difficult to get a divorce. Now, you can use "irreconcilable differences" for just about anything.

I would argue that society is pretty well on its way to becoming that smouldering pile of rubble.

Probably, but there are much more important issues that are the cause of that, and I don't think gay marriage is one of them.

Nice rhetoric. Bad logic.

Well, I'm trying to make a point - if we don't let gay people get married because a child needs a mother and a father to grow up properly, then why aren't the people who are advocates against gay marriage arguing just as loudly against single parent households? I think it's a very valid point. Single parents are probably worse for children than gay parents. So, why is there no opposition to that?

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by astarath

Two sides of the coin are merely this:

On one side God's love should be shared and thus all people should receive the same loving and kindness and be capable as well of returning that love.

On the either side the religious right see accepting homosexuality as normal in anyway as the propagation of sin. God's will is to encourage people to live lives without sin and so they also feel they are doing God's will.

Why single out that sin? People, Christian and non-Christian alike, sin all the time. Some of us can't go several hours without doing something someone would consider a sin. So, because the government doesn't regulate any of those things, does that force the religious to accept those things as ok? I really just don't understand that argument.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Why single out that sin? People, Christian and non-Christian alike, sin all the time. Some of us can't go several hours without doing something someone would consider a sin. So, because the government doesn't regulate any of those things, does that force the religious to accept those things as ok? I really just don't understand that argument.

IMHO, because it's an easy target.