|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What actually are "Family Values"
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I keep on hearing how the Conservatives/Republicans/WhateverBunchInYourCountry are in favour of "Family Values"
I keep hearing how allowing gay marriage damages "Family Values"
Could somebody actually list these values? What are they? How many of them are they? Why are they "Family" values? I'm truly intrigued.
[ 14. December 2004, 09:45: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Considering the divorce rate, I haven't a clue as to what "family values" are. If one really wanted to "defend" marriage that's where I'd start, personally.
Use of language in politics today (Maybe always?) is so Alice-in-Wonderland-like on both sides, I can't even listen to it.
But as best I can tell "family values" means if you elect me, I'll be sure everyone has a family like the Cleavers on "Leave It to Beaver". Without raising taxes, of course.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be, as the saying goes.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Passmore and Alabaster
Shipmate
# 7012
|
Posted
'Family Values' a suitably vague term, useful for politicians as long as they don't have to define it. The public can interpret it as they will.
--------------------
I love the smell of napalm in the morning
Posts: 162 | From: The home of 1904 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Family values are like natural goodness - a meaningless phrase. Family is a weird word that just gets attached to things to promote a warm feeling.
Family doctors - what are they? Don't they treat single people?
Family butchers - best not go there.
Jesus, of course, was virulently anti family.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
I think 'family values' are a lot like the 'basics' that John Major wanted us to get back to a few years ago. In other words, it's anything that appeals to a traditional and conservative belief that the world would be better if everybody conformed to a certain way of living. This includes getting married, staying married, having kids, raising those kids to be seen but not heard, holding down a respectable job, keeping your car clean, mowing the front lawn, going to church and keeping all the 'tawdry' stuff under the carpet. What would the neighbours think after all? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Once upon a time all good people lived in families presided over by a daughters ideal father and a sons ideal mother and romped in (innocently) by a parents ideal children. Alas, the serpent of modernity, personified by wicked raisin eating liberals (or worse, socialists), entered this bucolic idyll. In order to restore said idyll it is necessary to elect conservatives who will put single mothers back in the workhouse and gays back in the closet.
Needless to say, conservatives when elected do no such thing. Evelyn Waugh once remarked that the problem with the Conservative party is that it has not turned back the clock one second. He was, of course, entirely correct. The main contribution of conservatives to the family has, in fact, been to have a number of them. Someone once observed that if abortion was ever criminalised in the US it would be a disaster for the Republicans as a large chunk of the relgious vote would think 'job done!' and return to their natural home in the Democratic Party. Much the same could be said about family values. It is necessary, therefore, that the spectre of the dissolution of traditional values haunts the skilled working class and the lower middle class in order to persuade them to vote against their economic interests. Like the conflict between Oceania and Eastasia the war is necessary to keep the proles in a state of war hysteria, its resolution is not seriously intended.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
absie80
Apprentice
# 5829
|
Posted
My sister found this excellent badge (or pin to all the Americans out there)which says "Hate is not a family value!"
Tony Campolo recently wrote that parts of the American church and political establishment are merely hypocrits if they condemn gay people for somehow eroding family values and don't say anything about divorce rates. (I think this probably applies to other coutries aswell)
Posts: 4 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Isn't this largely an American culture-wars thing?
ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Once upon a time all good people lived in families presided over by a daughters ideal father and a sons ideal mother and romped in (innocently) by a parents ideal children. Alas, the serpent of modernity, personified by wicked raisin eating liberals (or worse, socialists), entered this bucolic idyll. In order to restore said idyll it is necessary to elect conservatives who will put single mothers back in the workhouse and gays back in the closet.
[...]
Like the conflict between Oceania and Eastasia the war is necessary to keep the proles in a state of war hysteria, its resolution is not seriously intended.
Brilliant post ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
keeping your car clean, mowing the front lawn, going to church and keeping all the 'tawdry' stuff under the carpet.
I don't have a car, a lawn, or a carpet.
Maybe I'd better be a leftie then.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Superb, Callan!
Until now, I thought the term meant nothing at all.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I suspect that "family values" means not doing anything that you'd hesitate to talk to your mother or your children about.
Which includes pretending that sex is something that married people do on a Saturday night.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Oh, it doesn't mean nothing at all, N.O. It's a sociological marker - a portmanteau way of declaring which side you are on. There are similar markers on both sides.
When troops go into battle, they need to distinguish which side they are on - knights wear coats-of-arms, troops carry banners, aircraft are fitted with IFF transponders. So you get things developed as tokens - it saves the effort of having to engage with the complexities of the matters in hand.
Of course, this goes for both sides. "Inclusion and diversity" are probably mirror-image markers on this one. In practice, neither seem to make any difference to the behaviour of the individual. "Conservative" praxis appears to embrace the divorce culture every bit as much as does the "Liberal" culture. And "Liberal" praxis seems to embrace exclusion as much as does the "Conservative".
Not, of course, that there aren't serious issues around both these topics. I wouldn't want to denigrate that. But most discourse in the public square that cites these issues is more analogous to the action of gorillas beating their chests, or cats peeing on the garden to mark out their territory.
Ian
[ 02. November 2004, 12:27: Message edited by: IanB ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Oh, it doesn't mean nothing at all, N.O. It's a sociological marker - a portmanteau way of declaring which side you are on. There are similar markers on both sides.
I'm not surprised at the cynical reactions to this term, but I would venture that there is more to it than this.
Some people believe that actual research shows that people in stable, long-term, faithful marriages are happier and more productive than those who aren't. Also that reliable research shows that children who grow up in happy marriages like these have a better chance in life than those who don't.
Most people also think that their upbringing has had a significant effect on their life. Everyone knows that the things commonly hoped for are things such as a stable and loving home, with a mother and father who love you and are able to provide for you. While all kinds of alternative arrangements may work out fine, these are nevertheless the common things that are typically hoped for.
This does not seem unusual to me. I would think that society as whole would want to promote this. Thus, family values.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Ah, but Freddy, that's the sensible side I was talking about. My main contention is that if these things are to mean anything at all, they need to signal a way of life. If they don't, then I'm afraid I'll just have to infer that most (not all) of the proponents don't take the outworkings of the principles they so vigorously shout about seriously at all.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect that "family values" means not doing anything that you'd hesitate to talk to your mother or your children about.
Which includes pretending that sex is something that married people do on a Saturday night.
Russ
Obviously, Russ dearie, you've never heard the conversations I've had with my mother.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
Ah, but Freddy, that's the sensible side I was talking about. My main contention is that if these things are to mean anything at all, they need to signal a way of life. If they don't, then I'm afraid I'll just have to infer that most (not all) of the proponents don't take the outworkings of the principles they so vigorously shout about seriously at all.Ian
Agreed.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Having had something of a definition from Freddy, I'm intrigued as to how "Family Values" are supported specifically by the Tories/Republicans/WhichEverLotUseThisPhraseInYourCountry.
The Tories were clearly against "Family Values" - their destruction of working men's jobs on economic grounds did untold damage to thousands of traditional familes in the Midlands and North during the 80s. You could make an argument that it was justified on economic grounds, but how did concern for "Family Values" come in there?
How does "Family Values" inform a policy of allowing employers to pay as low wages as they can, what by opposing minimum wage legislation and bringing in anti-union legislation? How does this assist parents in providing for their offspring?
How does "Family Values" inform opposing the requirement that employers be flexible with regard to the childcare arrangements that working parents need to make?
You can be opposed to these things, sure, but I don't see how you can trumpet "Family Values" at the same time. The right-wing adoption of this label appears to be hollow to me. As a family man, I know what policies help our family and which hinder it. The right are not into helping us. If they had their way, I doubt Mrs Backslider would have been able to have the maternity leave she got. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to be a family at all.
[ 02. November 2004, 14:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can be opposed to these things, sure, but I don't see how you can trumpet "Family Values" at the same time. The right-wing adoption of this label appears to be hollow to me. As a family man, I know what policies help our family and which hinder it.
It's the problem with democracy isn't it? Those who are most likely to be motivated to vote for "family values" are unlikely to vote for economic policies which promote healthy families. And those who believe in sharing the wealth etc often don't have much time for the nuclear family, and want to promote "alternative lifetsyles".
I want both family values and left wing economics, but I can't find a political party that does, nor very many other individuals who do. Weird.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
adsarf
Apprentice
# 4288
|
Posted
Karl
This is just another variant on the 'why do the [real] conservatives hang out with the Neocons?' question, isn't it. It happens that in the UK and US, 'conservative' political parties have been captured by people with wildly liberal views whom, for convenience, we call 'neoconservatives'. They don't have much else in common and never did.
It isn't very different from when we had Trots in the Labour party, or indeed Anarchists in the October Revolution. The link isn't an ideological one, its contingent and historical.
Posts: 24 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
An interesting theory adsarf.
However, there seem to be major differences. To this (admittedly puzzled) outsider, American neocons seem to have had some sort of apocalyptic conversion and bring the zeal of the convert. Whereas British "neocons" - by American standards - probably don't look like conservatives of any description.
Maybe I'm just ill-informed. But there again, maybe on the UK side, their views are so similar to the opposition that shouting and yelling in code is the only way to convince people they offer any distinctive policies.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
if abortion was ever criminalised in the US it would be a disaster for the Republicans as a large chunk of the relgious vote would think 'job done!' and return to their natural home in the Democratic Party. Much the same could be said about family values. It is necessary, therefore, that the spectre of the dissolution of traditional values haunts the skilled working class and the lower middle class in order to persuade them to vote against their economic interests. Like the conflict between Oceania and Eastasia the war is necessary to keep the proles in a state of war hysteria, its resolution is not seriously intended.
Let me add my applause to those of others for a very perspicacious post! Although I've had most of these thoughts myself, you tied them together in a very convincing way.
It's one aspect of the fact that many people ( Americans, at least) who like to call themselves "conservatives" don't deserve the appelation and should not be allowed to adorn themselves with it unchallenged. For want of a better term, I now try to refer to them as right-wingers rather than conservatives, and heartily advise others to do likewise-- but taking them at face value seems to be a rather hard habit to break.
Anyone who promotes or celebrates laissez-faire or so-called "free market" capitalism has thrown his lot in with the forces of change, indeed of perpetual change for the sake of change, and can hardly be at the same time concerned with conservation: whether of physical resources or of moral, cultural, or "family" values. Not all change is bad, nor am I so quixotic as to be a socialist or any other kind of uncompromising anti-capitalist; but we'd best be aware of these inherent contradictions and keep wearing protective clothing while immersed in this environment.
Your message pointed out that the wiliest and most powerful of our "family values" prophets give this agenda a low priority not only out of benign neglect: they actually want it to remain unfulfilled. I'm ready to believe you.
Speaking of family values, I'd like to append a much narrower contradiction, but it has been evident for some time: this is the way that children of gay parents are stigmatized. Books addressing their situation are never safe in libraries. The likes of Heather has too mommies and Daddy's Roommate are never safe in libraries. Self-appointed censors agitate for their removal year after year.
Such children are harassed. If certain folk had their way would be harassed far more by constant reminders, from teachers and others those in supposed authority, that their families are not the approved sort and that their parent(s)-- the only parents they have, needless to say-- are evil people.
If such a siege were laid to one party in the husband-wife relationship, it would be called "alienation of affections", and in the smuggest "family values" states it would be a crime. But it's o.k. by them to subject little children to this bullying.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to the fourth Commandment: "honor thy father and thy mother?"
[ 02. November 2004, 17:24: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I like Callan's take on 'family values', too.
'Family values' is, to me, either a myth or an overhyped vision of what should really be the wider issue of 'human values'. That is, that what we claim to value in 'family' life - respect, honour, loyalty, love, honesty, for what else makes for those idealistic relationships as some posters have described them? - should be the way that all of us should strive to relate to everybody 'family' or not.
In other words, if we could actually treat, so far as is possible, everyone according to these kinds of values, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender etc, then 'family values' would simply be the small sub-set, within the wider equation of human relationship that it actually is.
Ironically, this turns things on its head, and makes the family unit responsible for the state of society not vice versa; and lays the onus for instilling 'human values' on those who are bringing up and nurturing the newer generations, rather than pushing the blame for disintegration of the family unit, on the nasty outsiders forcing their un-family way of life upon them.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would venture that there is more to it than this.
Family values
1. Nuclear family (husband, wife, children) upheld as the highest, best, and most stable lifestyle
2. Marriage upheld as a lifelong commitment
3. Father/husband as head of household
4. Role-based division of responsibilities: husband works a regular paying job while wife keeps house and raises children
5. Children schooled through 12th grade or longer
6. Upholding the fiction of abstinance before marraige as the proper ideal.
That's what they mean.
I hold up #1,2, and 5 as good things whenever they can be achieved. #3 & 4 are fine as long as husband and wife really agree on them. #6 fails the reality check.
As for other overloaded meanings, yes, to some "family values" is a coverup for discrimination against GLBT people. But, there are plenty of people who live a "family values" lifestyle who are accepting of other lifestyles. I figure the traditional "family values" approach works for about 60% of the population, at best. Everyone else has to figure out something different.
Bartolomeo
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
#6 fails the reality check.
I think that's the key right there to the hostility to family values.
Individual sexual morality may not be as common as it ought to be, but it is narrowly pessimistic to claim that it is non-existant, or that it doesn't matter. It has an enormous effect on people's lives.
It's not all-or-nothing either.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can be opposed to these things, sure, but I don't see how you can trumpet "Family Values" at the same time. The right-wing adoption of this label appears to be hollow to me. As a family man, I know what policies help our family and which hinder it.
It's the problem with democracy isn't it? Those who are most likely to be motivated to vote for "family values" are unlikely to vote for economic policies which promote healthy families. And those who believe in sharing the wealth etc often don't have much time for the nuclear family, and want to promote "alternative lifetsyles".
I want both family values and left wing economics, but I can't find a political party that does, nor very many other individuals who do. Weird.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
I was going to say that,that is my problem too
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would venture that there is more to it than this.
Family values
1. Nuclear family (husband, wife, children) upheld as the highest, best, and most stable lifestyle
2. Marriage upheld as a lifelong commitment
3. Father/husband as head of household
4. Role-based division of responsibilities: husband works a regular paying job while wife keeps house and raises children
5. Children schooled through 12th grade or longer
6. Upholding the fiction of abstinance before marraige as the proper ideal.
That's what they mean.
I hold up #1,2, and 5 as good things whenever they can be achieved. #3 & 4 are fine as long as husband and wife really agree on them. #6 fails the reality check.
As for other overloaded meanings, yes, to some "family values" is a coverup for discrimination against GLBT people. But, there are plenty of people who live a "family values" lifestyle who are accepting of other lifestyles. I figure the traditional "family values" approach works for about 60% of the population, at best. Everyone else has to figure out something different.
Bartolomeo
Actually, #4 also fails the reality check for most US families. The poverty level here is artificially and arbitrarily tied to the cost of food (which because of agri-subsidies, holds fairly constant). The cost of housing, however, has soared.
In my state, one out of every three homeless families has at least one full-time wage-earner.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I particularly like the phrase biblical family values.
You know, the ones where:
1) You subject your child to ritualistic near sacrifice
2) You take several women as wives, then have one child as a favourite, at the same time casting out and/or ignoring the rest of your offspring
3) You take your child to the nearest religious authority, and leave him there
4) You put your small baby in a basket and leave him to float down the river
5) You know your wife is living as a prostitute, but you use her as an living example to the whole of society
6) You consider divorcing your pregnant fiancee (even though you are not married yet, shock horror)
In fact I challenge anyone to show me a biblical example of 'good' family relations!
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phaedra
Apprentice
# 8385
|
Posted
A relevant book came out recently: "What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."
The idea is this. Conservatives manage to market themselves as the "family values" party (abortion is bad, gay marriage is bad, the "secular liberal elite" is bad, nuclear families are good) even though they do virtually nothing to really encourage "family values" beyond the rhetoric and speechifying. And yet the rhetoric is effective--people actually become convinced that their way of life is under attack from gays and godless liberals, and they vote on those issues without thinking of the economic impact on themselves.
Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to vote on moral issues like those if they're important to you. But I can't honestly believe it's realistic--the conservatives talk big, but I don't see any more of those "family values" in practice than I did four years ago.
Posts: 27 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
That's it in a nutshell, Phaedra. Just to avoid random slagging-off, here's a working overview of some of the issues. At least to serve as some sort of reference point.
I'm sorry if some sort of barely-suppressed resentment came through earlier, but I have very little confidence in either side of this debate.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I think there's often an implication that the rest of us are inevitably having to pay for others to live alternative lifestyles. If only everyone would abstain from sex before marriage and then stay married, there would be no single mothers on welfare.
Quite how this objection translates to gay or lesbian lifestyles is not explained. But they are obviously a Bad Thing requiring no further explanation.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Jesus, of course, was virulently anti family.
Good point! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In our recent election we had a new party called "Family First" (mainly supported by the Assemblies of God). The local pentecostal minister's wife accosted me about voting for them, to which I replied that the very name of the party was unbiblical. As she sputtered I commented that the only time Jesus explicitly talks about families it's to tell us specifically not to put families first!
[ 02. November 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: linzC ]
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
Didn't George Bush senior espouse "family values", urge all good American families to be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons and then not get elected?
I personally feel that the term is used by politicians to make themselves seem better than their opponents. It is used in such a way that the impression is given that anyone who does not agree with them in everything (family related or not) is anti-family and therefore evil. It actually has no value at all having not been defined by the politicians.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Family values
2. Marriage upheld as a lifelong commitment
That's what they mean.
I'm interested in #2: how exactly does one "uphold marriage as a lifelong commitment"? By making divorce illegal? By refusing to get divorced oneself (like, say, Newt Gingrich), no matter how bad or abusive or dead one's marriage is? Or by paying lip service to marriage as a lifelong commitment and acting exactly the same as everybody else in the society?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
I was going to say that,that is my problem too
Ditto. I don't know whether we can open up the discussion to debate why those who are more conservative theologically must also somehow be conservative on the politico-economic scale and why the party-political systems on both sides of the Atlantic seem to entrench that. Or perhaps Karl would want us to start a new thread on that particular point?
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Perhaps I am 'reading this wrong,' but it seems to me there is an assumed correspondence between economic prosperity and (resultant?!) stress on family.
I come of a working class family (and one that was extremely poor for a good percentage of the 20th century). Dedication to caring for and supporting one another was unquestionable. There was a strong sense of responsibility and concern. Yet there was no hint that a strong family either came from or resulted in wealth. (Nor that those in poverty lacked moral values - we knew better.)
I know I am expressing this poorly, but this 'family values' business seems based on a sense of threats coming from (for example) gay marriages, where I cannot fathom connection. I also cannot see where (again, as an example) benefits which allow people to obtain means to better health, a secure roof over their heads, proper nutrition, etc., threaten the family! (Though I have noticed that the wealthier very much overestimate the income those on benefits have!)
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Though I have noticed that the wealthier very much overestimate the income those on benefits have!
As do the poor sometimes. Its quite easy to find people on low wags with a hugely inflated idea of the governement benefits available to unemployed, refugees, single mothers or whover.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
why those who are more conservative theologically must also somehow be conservative on the politico-economic scale and why the party-political systems on both sides of the Atlantic seem to entrench that
I don't believe that that is the case in Britain or the Scandinavian countries.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
why those who are more conservative theologically must also somehow be conservative on the politico-economic scale and why the party-political systems on both sides of the Atlantic seem to entrench that
I don't believe that that is the case in Britain or the Scandinavian countries.
Nor do I.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Family values
1. Nuclear family (husband, wife, children) upheld as the highest, best, and most stable lifestyle
2. Marriage upheld as a lifelong commitment
3. Father/husband as head of household
4. Role-based division of responsibilities: husband works a regular paying job while wife keeps house and raises children
5. Children schooled through 12th grade or longer
6. Upholding the fiction of abstinance before marriage as the proper ideal.
And all these enforced with the full power of the law.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ken and Marvin, pray enlighten me further. I cannot comment on the Scandinavian nations but I do not see any correlation between the Liberal Democrats, who are IMO the most left-wing party we now have, and social conservatism. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ken and Marvin, pray enlighten me further. I cannot comment on the Scandinavian nations but I do not see any correlation between the Liberal Democrats, who are IMO the most left-wing party we now have, and social conservatism.
Well, I don't know about that. But your post said that anyone who is theologically conservative also tended to be politically conservative.
It's that that I disagree with. For a start, I'm politically conservative and theologically liberal...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, I don't know about that. But your post said that anyone who is theologically conservative also tended to be politically conservative.
It's that that I disagree with. For a start, I'm politically conservative and theologically liberal...
And I'm theologically conservative and politically liberal. So there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, in the UK at least, there is a long tradition of theologically conservative types being strongly politically socialist.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ken and Marvin, pray enlighten me further. I cannot comment on the Scandinavian nations but I do not see any correlation between the Liberal Democrats, who are IMO the most left-wing party we now have, and social conservatism.
Indeed. I proffer this as an example: economically, the Lib Dems have the policies with which I would have most sympathy. But when I lived in Oxford I could not bring myself to vote for their candidate who was one of the leading lights in Stonewall.
Now before I get leapt on, I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the issues at stake, but merely point out that social conservatism (aka family values) and economic socialism rarely go hand in hand.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Agreed. Alan, can you give me a concrete example of the phenomenon to which you refer?
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hedonism_bot
Shipmate
# 5027
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun
social conservatism (aka family values) and economic socialism rarely go hand in hand.
When they do, it's called Facism. (By which I mean the historical polical movements of the 1920s and 30s, not what students think Bush is.)
Posts: 778 | From: Running from the grand ennui | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hedonism_bot:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun
social conservatism (aka family values) and economic socialism rarely go hand in hand.
When they do, it's called Facism. (By which I mean the historical polical movements of the 1920s and 30s, not what students think Bush is.)
Golly. I am a fascist. Weird.
BNP it is then.
[ 03. November 2004, 14:16: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Not automatically. That introduces the separate dimension of authoritarianism, which can be found anywhere and everywhere with many other combinations of things.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
