Thread: Purgatory: What actually are "Family Values" Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001036
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by Passmore and Alabaster (# 7012) on
:
'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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by phudfan (# 4740) on
:
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)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by absie80 (# 5829) on
:
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)
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
Isn't this largely an American culture-wars thing?
ian
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
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)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
Superb, Callan!
Until now, I thought the term meant nothing at all.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
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
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
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
Posted by Red Sox Rt. Rev. Go Anne Go (# 3519) on
:
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.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on
:
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.
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
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
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
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
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
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.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
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.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
I was going to say that,that is my problem too
Posted by Jajehu (# 6196) on
:
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.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
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
Posted by Phaedra (# 8385) on
:
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.
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
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
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
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.
Posted by linzC (# 2914) on
:
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 ]
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
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!)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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...
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, in the UK at least, there is a long tradition of theologically conservative types being strongly politically socialist.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Agreed. Alan, can you give me a concrete example of the phenomenon to which you refer?
Matt
Posted by hedonism_bot (# 5027) on
:
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.)
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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 ]
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
Not automatically. That introduces the separate dimension of authoritarianism, which can be found anywhere and everywhere with many other combinations of things.
Posted by evangelical_backslider (# 7210) on
:
The truly great thing about 'family values' as a political phrase is that nobody can come out and actually claim they are 'against' family values. It is thus a brilliant phrase to use - particularly as most people then take it to mean whatever they like.
I don't think there's a problem with 'family values' as such; but there is a problem when this is enshrined and encouraged in law. I strongly believe the government should keep out of people's personal lives as far as possible, as long as what they're doing isn't actually damaging others or society at large (of course, the 'family values' bunch think that gays, single mothers, et al, are damaging society, but that's another issue).
Posted by In Theory (# 2964) on
:
So, going on the posts of Bartolomeo and others, maybe the value of a family can be calculated as some sort of weighted sum...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
But your post was about supposed correlation between theological conservatism and right-wing politics.
And I just don't think there is round here.
In all the various church situations I've been in England, most but not all on the Evangelical end of things, I've never seen the slightest evidence that people vote differently from their non-beleiving neighbours of the same class or ethnic background.
I did get the impression, years ago, that there were perhaps more Liberal voters amongst evangelicals than you'd expect - perhaps because the Tories were percieved as the Nasty Party so Christians who might otherwise have voted for them tended to vote Liberal instead.
As far as I know the majority of my current church are likely to vote Labour - as you would expect from and mostly black group of people in the inner-city.
In more middle-calss suburban areas I think the numbers who would vote Tory go up. I'm not at all sure that being an evangelical or theologically conservative Christian has a significant effect on party affiliation at all.
In the USA, on the other hand, there seems to be a strong correlation between theological conservatism & Republican voting among white Protestant Christians - though its not absolute. Somwewhere around 70% of white people who identified as "born again" or "evangelical" said they would be voting Republican. But the same doesn't apply to black Protestants or to Roman Catholics.
Also, as Alan said, there has been a tradition of social activism amongst Christians in the UK< much of which relates more easily to the left-wing thatn the right-wing. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were strong associations between non-conformist church membership and support for the Liberals.
There has also been a smaller tradition, perhaps from an almost utopian or millenarian point of view, of very radical even revolutionary activity from some of the far-out weirdo Christians.
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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?
Funny how most people who espouse "family values" have the blessing of a happy first marriage.
There's not much the government can do, though people who really believe in #2 demonstrate it in their personal values, their approach to their own marriage, and the way they counsel others.
I'm going out on a limb somewhat with this but I would say that, in my personal experience, half of the people I know who are divorced were in marriages where there was no abuse, alcoholism, or other unresolvable problem. Instead, one of the spouses saw an opportunity to "trade up" to a spouse that was more affluent, more interesting, or easier to control, or to a more freewheeling lifestyle.
Bartolomeo
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I'm going out on a limb somewhat with this but I would say that, in my personal experience, half of the people I know who are divorced were in marriages where there was no abuse, alcoholism, or other unresolvable problem. Instead, one of the spouses saw an opportunity to "trade up" to a spouse that was more affluent, more interesting, or easier to control, or to a more freewheeling lifestyle.
Ah, very much like Newt Gingrich then. And that original champeen of family values, Ronny Raygun, was a divorced man himself.
In short, a lot of lip service. Like I said.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Thanks, Ken. I kind of get what you're saying . I suppose my bleat is that, like Lep, I sometimes want to vote for a candidate or party like the Lib Dems who espouse on the one hand a fairer deal for the poor and needy, but am put off by the pro-abortion and pro-gay rights credentials of the same. OTOH I could vote Tory and get someone who is ostensibly more pro-'family values' but who is also perhaps too pro-business-at-the-expense-of-the-poor (like our MP). I accept that those sort of distinctions are becoming more blurred with those on the progressive wing of the Conservative Party like the Portillistas taking up the cudgels for gay rights (heck, even Howard talks in terms of an inclusive party) and that religious convictions are much more of a party- political issue on the other side of the Pond, but I think the basic point - and my dilemma - still stands
Matt
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is where I get confused - which bit of "gay rights" are you so opposed to?
And why is talk of an "inclusive party" so worrying for you? Do you really want a "no poofters!" party to vote for?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is where I get confused - which bit of "gay rights" are you so opposed to?
Are you sure you want to have this discussion?
My answers:
Civil partnerships, adoption by gay couples, the repeal of section 28, "fair" employment legislation without adequate safeguards for religious groups. To name but a few. All of which the MP in my story had campaigned for, and hence I felt unable to vote for.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
[ 04. November 2004, 09:02: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
And why does 'pro-Gay-rights' equate to 'anti-Family Values' (or vice versa)?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant. As, of course, do the easy divorce laws and soaring divorce rate that we currently 'enjoy'; I am well aware of the deplorable hypocrisy of the likes of Newt Gingrich and the 'Back to Basics' of John 'Edwina Currie' Major on that point.
Matt
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
See my above post
Matt
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Well, quite. It's not as if gay people, denied civil partnerships, are going to say: "stuff this for a game of soldiers, I'm going to marry a straight person instead".
It seems to me that if you want to uphold the stability of family life you need to look, primarily, at heterosexual behaviour. The whole anti gay rights agenda looks like anxious heterosexuals projecting their anxieties onto gay people to me. Am I the only person who is blind to the irony that, as heterosexuals are moving en masse away from the idea of faithful, stable and permanent relationships, gay people are being told that they are Very Wicked for seeking such things? How do gay people living in faithful, permanent and stable relationships undermine heterosexuals doing the same?
Cross posted with half a dozen people - I was agreeing with Rat.
[ 04. November 2004, 09:13: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
See my above post
Matt
Your above post does not explain what right you have to deny inheritance rights to homosexuals, Matt.
C
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Matt - could you address the second question in my post? This is the bit I'm really interested in.
Oh, and Wot Callan Said.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
Just as a point of information, anyone can leave property by will to anyone else. It's what happens if you don't leave a will that's in issue. If you marry, your spouse is next of kin (although things are complicated when you have children). If you live with a same sex partner, your parents are likely to remain as next of kin.
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
If an individual wishes to leave property to any another individual by Will, he or she can do so under the existing law; if that beneficiary happens to be the sexual partner of the testator/trix, so be it. What I am against, for the reasons stated, is legislation to amend the rules of intestacy that would elevate non-marital relationships to quasi-marital status
Matt
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Maybe it's me being thick here, but I just don't see how this would work. It's not as if relationships are like currency - too much of it around and it gets devalued. The more faithful, committed relationships there are around, the more we all benefit. The more children there ared taken out of the care system, and adopted by loving families, the more we all benefit. The more people who are able to be accepted for what they are, the fewer people we will have in our mental health system, and the more we all benefit.
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If an individual wishes to leave property to any another individual by Will, he or she can do so under the existing law; if that beneficiary happens to be the sexual partner of the testator/trix, so be it. What I am against, for the reasons stated, is legislation to amend the rules of intestacy that would elevate non-marital relationships to quasi-marital status
Matt
One area of property that can't always be covered by will is that of survivors pension rights. Dependenat children are usually covered but in many instances whereas a widows or widowers pension would be payable no such pension would be payable to a same-sex partner or an unmarried partner.
Things are moving in this matter but it is up to the pension scheme provider (usually the employer). There are a number of tricky cases going through at the moment regarding Gulf War dead.
[clarified, I hope]
[ 04. November 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
Which exactly highlights the unfairness in the system. If a heterosexual couple makes the choice not to marry then they should know that by doing so they choose not to recieve the same treatment under law as a married couple. The unfairness is that a homosexual couple don't get the choice.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
Just as a point of information, anyone can leave property by will to anyone else. It's what happens if you don't leave a will that's in issue. If you marry, your spouse is next of kin (although things are complicated when you have children). If you live with a same sex partner, your parents are likely to remain as next of kin.
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
Point taken, Moth. I am interested to hear if there are actually any reasons to deny committed homosexual relationships the rights that married people take for granted.
C
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Maybe it's me being thick here, but I just don't see how this would work. It's not as if relationships are like currency - too much of it around and it gets devalued. The more faithful, committed relationships there are around, the more we all benefit. The more children there ared taken out of the care system, and adopted by loving families, the more we all benefit. The more people who are able to be accepted for what they are, the fewer people we will have in our mental health system, and the more we all benefit.
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
As a bona fide GLE, I can't see why either. As a lawyer, I would rather there was some record of a relationship intended to be permanent. I don't see why people can't just live together without creating legal relations if they like, but they can't then complain if they don't get the same legal rights as those who have recorded their relationship.
Therefore, I am all for civil partnerships giving next of kin rights to whoever people choose, whatever their sexual orientation.
I find it difficult to describe same sex relationships as "marriage", but I'll admit that's not a well-thought-out position on my part.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Matt - could you address the second question in my post? This is the bit I'm really interested in.
Oh, and Wot Callan Said.
There's nothing wrong with an 'inclusive party'.I'm not sure I said there was . Where I struggle, for the reasons I've given, is with a party that advances the gay rights agenda
Matt
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question
<snip>
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Ah-ha, now we get to the meat.
1. Should a theological position mean that people who do not agree with your theological position are denied rights?
2. If marriage is so sacrisanct, and therefore presumably the rights and responsibilities of marriage are to be respected, how does spreading those rights and responsibilities to others (outside of the traditional understanding of marriage) weaken them? Inheritance is a bad example for me, as I know little about it, but surely everyone can agree that some things are reasonable for the state to give to committed relationships. Surely the fact that they have been reserved in the past for marriage is irrelevant.
3. Even if we could all agree that certain behaviours were 'unbiblical' how does that play with a society which does not accept those things and in fact in which we are in a minority?
As I said before, the church is to be prophetic. The problems arise when the church slips into a quasi-governmental position and starts throwing its weight around.
C
[Deleted extra code.]
[ 04. November 2004, 10:53: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Where I struggle, for the reasons I've given, is with a party that advances the gay rights agenda
Surely it's not a gay rights agenda - it's a human rights agenda. No one (at least not in any major political party) advocates greater rights for homosexual people, just equal rights. The right to be treated as a normal human being rather than some sort of pervert. Is that really too much to ask for?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
So, then, Family Values is actually a negative concept? It is not about the encouragement of the positive things listed earlier (stable families, happy homes and the like), but about stopping other people doing things. Particularly, it seems, things that might make them a bit more like us. Stable families, happy homes and the like.
Seem like a bit of a no-win situation for the gays and loose women.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Sorry, Matt, read a little too much into your comment about Michael Howard.
I'm still not sure how my marriage is undermined by, e.g., Ms Winterbottom being allowed to marry her partner. I can't help feeling that that's none of my business.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
But Matt, this is ridiculous. The fact that other faiths stake a claim to exclusivity is irrelevant to my claim to exclusivity. Its unique value is not undermined in the slightest, and more to the point, I would expect the state (which is, afterall, for everyone) to treat all faiths with respect. I don't understand how my faith is undermined by asking local planning authorities to consider the building of mosques fairly.
Similarly, I don't see how my ideal of marriage is undermined by the state recognising other relationships. That is its duty, IMO.
C
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Rat, it's also about the reinforcement and support of those who are married
Matt
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
How exactly are male/female marriages supported and reinforced by the proponents of "Family Values", practically?
And how is that hindered by letting Peter Tatchell marry his partner, practically?
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
I don't quite follow this. In my life, I try to be an example of the values I espouse. I am, and have for over 20 years been, faithfully married to my husband. I live as upright and honest a life as I am able. I give to church and charities. I support my extended family, caring for my parents when required, bringing up my children within the community of the church, supporting my sister when she was left alone with two young children. I take part in my local community by being a school governor.
In all this I am doing all I can to be the "light of the world" in the best way I know.
How does my denying rights to others assist me in this? Am I trying to make myself look better by making life difficult for them? Surely if my way is truly best, they will see this by my example, not by my denial of their rights!
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Matt, you wrote in answer to my question. quote:
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Sorry, Matt, that wasn't quite the question I was asking.
Firstly, I would want to take issue with you that the proponants of equal rights for cohabitees or gay partnerships hold thew position that they do as a result of moral relativism. Alan has eloquently suggested another motivation, so I won't pursue it any further, other than to note my agreement with him.
The question was about actual disadvantage, rather than the theoretical philosophical base. I'm not quite sure that your analogy is a valid one, but just to pursue it towards what I was getting at, would christianity be damaged (e.g. would persecution increase, or would fewer people become converts) if its uniqueness was compromised. I'm not trying to answer that question here, merely pointing to the sort of questions I was hoping to be answered.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
JJ, Cheesy* and Moth, will try to answer, but have just been notified that my aged grandmother has suffered another fall, so will need to shortly dash off and attend to that particular family value with my apologies
In the same way that relativism re Christianity in the church diminishes its worth therein, so does relativism re marriage by society diminishes its moral worth therein. Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
As far as strengthening marriage goes, both the church and the state do some good which could and should be expanded eg; marriage preparation courses, marriage guidance counselling, reinstatement of the married couples' tax allowance, reform of the divorce laws etc
Will try to get back to this thread asap, but am signing off for the moment
Matt
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
And, my point wasn't that there shouldn't be rights that properly appertain to marriage. My point was that to deny people the choice to have those rights by getting married is to treat them as inferior to others who are allowed to choose those rights. The argument applies across the board - if it's wrong to prevent people from marrying if they have different skin colours why isn't it wrong to prevent people from marrying if their sexual preferences are different?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I was not saying that they shouldn't. All I was commenting on was that the parties that have held a similar view with me on this tend to have economic policies that I deplore. That was my only point.
The phrase "family values" does tend to presuppose a particular view of the family. Most of the time, those who use it, and agree with it, me included ,see a male/female lifelong relationship as the basic unit around which a family should grow. Many see this as a God given ordinance, some merely see it as the way to promote a stable society.
The promotion of other forms of relationship to have the value, rights and privileges, by this view, de facto devalues traditional marriage.
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
I realise I am in a minority both here, and quite possibly in society at large, but the point of having a liberal democracy is that minority views have a right to be heard. At the moment, I was simply saying that there is no party that presents these views.
So, interestingly, while I was very anti-war, and broadly socialist in my politics, pro looser immigration laws etc, and I never read the Daily Mail, I don't think Middle America should be decried as stupid or ignorant for voting Bush.
He promised to protect values they think are important. The voted for him. While I probably wouldn't have done so myself because of his environmental policies, I find his stance against moral relatvism on these issues sadly lacking in any British political party, and were one of them to take it (which seems a pure speculation at the moment), it may well influence my vote far more than their economic policies.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
Why does preserving something as unique make it greater valued? Why does the existance of other marriage relationships damage the heterosexual marriage with children (which is what I think the word "family" within the phrase under discussion refers to) as the basic unit of society?
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, Cheesy* and Moth, will try to answer, but have just been notified that my aged grandmother has suffered another fall, so will need to shortly dash off and attend to that particular family value with my apologies
Noted. I hope she is soon back on her feet.
quote:
In the same way that relativism re Christianity in the church diminishes its worth therein, so does relativism re marriage by society diminishes its moral worth therein. Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
This isn't an answer, sorry. Moral relativism in the church has nothing to do with relativism by the state. You have still to establish why the state should recognise the rights of one section of society and not another. There may be a reason, but you have not supplied one.
quote:
As far as strengthening marriage goes, both the church and the state do some good which could and should be expanded eg; marriage preparation courses, marriage guidance counselling, reinstatement of the married couples' tax allowance, reform of the divorce laws etc
Will try to get back to this thread asap, but am signing off for the moment
Matt
Sure. It makes perfect sense for the state to recognise and affirm long term relationships. Again this does not help decide why (to the state) homosexual relationships are any different to heterosexual ones.
Personally, I don't really see how claiming a strong belief in 'family values' is ever going to help.
C
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why does preserving something as unique make it greater valued?
I'm not really sure how to answer this - I thought it was implicit in all the discussions. Certainly the pro-gay rights groups say that the current state of play "devalues" gay relationships - that seems to be the main plank in their argument.
quote:
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this. Others have disagreed me. I disagree with them. I wish there was a party the represented my point of view, with vaguely socialist economic policies. That's all.
If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, I am happy to do so in Dead Horses.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The phrase "family values" does tend to presuppose a particular view of the family. Most of the time, those who use it, and agree with it, me included ,see a male/female lifelong relationship as the basic unit around which a family should grow. Many see this as a God given ordinance, some merely see it as the way to promote a stable society.
Yep, that's how I see it too.
quote:
The promotion of other forms of relationship to have the value, rights and privileges, by this view, de facto devalues traditional marriage.
I disagree.
quote:
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
I still don't see why letting anybody marry devalues the 'traditional' family.
I do, however, disagree strongly with giving the same rights to an unmarried couple as to a married couple. That would devalue marriage in my view.
So, the way I see it, giving everyone the right to marry whomever they choose would actually strengthen the institution of marriage, as we would no longer have any unmarried couples claiming the same rights and priveliges.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
This is an excellent point. I would argue (especially if there was a drink in it for me) that the extended family is a much better basic unit of society, being much less fragile and less claustrophobic than the nuclear family.
It is also of longer standing. The nuclear family is a relatively recent innovation and not, I would say, an unreservedly successful one.
I think it is interesting that the ideal pointed to by Family Values politicians is one that, if it ever existed at all in any real sense, existed only for a very brief time and could better be called an anomaly than the mainstream of family history. But maybe, as Callan said, an acheivable ideal is not the point of the exercise.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I am curious about the reasoning behind the idea of traditional marriage somehow needing encouragement and support. Is there some feeling that the institution of marriage is actually under attack? Are we talking about the marriage covenent as celebrated by the Church, or are we talking about the marriage contract as enforced by the State? I ask because there has been quite a bit of discussion on these boards concerning the meaningful difference between the two. That distinction of meaning seems to have gotten a bit muddled in this particular thread. Perhaps I'm wrong, so please enlighten me.
I'm going to forge ahead on the assumption that separating the two will facilitate logical discussion.
If the discussion solely centers around churches recognizing homosexual marriage or unions, then surely no one wants the State making that decision. If the decision is up to the Church then this discussion belongs in Dead Horses. Avoiding the deceased equine for the moment, a Church wedding that does not carry the sanction of the State will not affect people's property and civil rights. I know some ministers who would be pleased to challenge the doctrine of their denominations and perform a marriage for a gay couple. That would not confer any State regulated rights or privileges on the happy couple.
If the discussion centers solely on the State I am unclear on how this would in any way denigrate the institution of marriage as celebrated by the Church. Just because the State recognized homosexual unions the Church would not have to do so as well. (There may be some such requirement in States with an official church that if the State says it can happen, the Church must follow. If that is so my argument does not apply.)
If the State recognized homosexual unions how would that take away from the institution of marriage? Would it make it less "special?" Is there really an argument that heterosexuals are entitled to not only the same rights as anyone else, but to being "special" as well? What other areas would you like to have the State reserve for you as being "special?" Perhaps something about your particular denomination and not having to stand in line at the grocery?
Is there some notion that allowing homosexuals to share in the kinds of property and civil rights married persons enjoy would take those rights away from heterosexuals? How? Has anyone seriously argued that property and civil rights are in limited supply such that giving rights to some means that others will have to surrender their rights?
My feeling is that the argument against State recognition of homosexual unions has to do with religious belief. If that is the case you should come clean about it. If it is not, please explain how a civil union for homosexuals detracts in any form or fashion from a Church celebration of a a marriage before God, or a State recognition of status.
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
So, then, Family Values is actually a negative concept? It is not about the encouragement of the positive things listed earlier (stable families, happy homes and the like), but about stopping other people doing things. Particularly, it seems, things that might make them a bit more like us. Stable families, happy homes and the like.
When I have seen references to 'family values' on various sites, there seems to be a strong (and bizarre) idea on some that 'our children' should be protected from even knowing that 'other' people do not live according to the model which Callan superbly set forth.
The arts and humanities are suspect - no film, play, book, etc., that illustrates life beyond the rosy dream is allowed, because 'real life' cannot exist - only 'role models.' (I dare say 'our children' could not be allowed to read the bible.) Television is the ruination of the world. 'Our children' must not ever see anyone drink a glass of wine - bad example. History must be filtered so the evil is removed.
Then again, I need to recall that the arts and humanities (my own field.. pure role model that I am, with all my gin and fags) do not come into play. All that the young do is schoolwork, aside from when they join mum and dad for some wholesome, planned family activity (which I assume includes aerobic exercise), during which they may collect pictures for their fun album.
There is a disturbing sense, in some of these sites, that the secret to a happy world is total parental control. Even those approaching adulthood should have influence and instruction only from parents. How one would be able to live one's values, whatever they are, in future if one has been taught to hate or fear anyone whose views are contrary is beyond me.
Of course, the real problems in one's own family (and every family has them) need to be ignored.
There seems to be a curious contradiction. On the one hand, concern for those who are (for example) without health care does not matter, because it does not affect 'me.' Yet 'I' am to be outraged at what other people are doing in their beds. ('Our children' cannot exactly know what is going on in anyone's bed, save that there is some glorious union called marriage - and one must never call a bonk a bonk, but make it seem some mysterious religious rite, before which the participants find a scripture verse to read together.)
I had previously mentioned that I come from a family that cared for one another - and it was survival. Yet there was no sheltering from the 'real world' - the entire reason we often needed to stay together to survive was because of very 'real' situations.
I'll spare all of you my commentary on how very much some of the 'family values' myth reminds me of the Hanoverian (especially Victorian) era.
[ 04. November 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Newman's Own ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this. Others have disagreed me. I disagree with them.
I agree with you. But I think that there is something more subtle at work here as well.
"Family values" includes the idea that setting boundaries on behavior, especially sexual behavior, is fundamental to a healthy society. A people's ability to do this will predict their success in every area of life.
It is like the fabled experiment in which children were left alone in a room with a table full of chocolate, and told not to take any. Some obeyed and some did not. The children were then tracked for decades to see if taking or not taking the chocolate was in any way predictive of future performance. I'm sure you know the results.
The idea with "family values" is not that any one particular behavior makes or breaks it. It is that the more people are able to adhere to moral behaviors, especially in the area of sexuality, the better off they will be, and the better off society will be. Sexual behaviors are especially important because intimate social behaviors are intuitively recognized as more central to the core of a person's being than other behaviors.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Leprechaun refers to the family as 'the basic unit of society'. In fact, the basic unit of society is the individual living in relation, within the community. And only when we afford the individual the human rights due to it, rather than waiting before each individual conforms to a (temporarily) preferred equation of moral relationship, will we really begin to live and participate in a society that is fit for everyone to live in.
Otherwise according to Lep's definition widows, single people, children/people in care etc are all unworthy of 'protection and preservation'. They may not constitute someone's particular Disneyesque view of society, but they are still society, or at least, community nevertheless. And the 'unique' configuration of 'family' - however that is interpreted - no more deserves to be protected or preserved than anyone else.
That isn't to say there shouldn't be help for families, tailored to their needs etc; but it is to say that such help, acceptance should be equally available for those who are 'uniquely' in their own relationship with community, whatever that may be.
Still can't understand why Matt Black thinks the particularity of Christ's gospel is compromized by those who might wish to extend 'family values' to all of God's children. It's rather strange to make a deduction that someone must be assumed not to believe in this particularity because they wish to see homosexual couples share the same rights as heterosexual couples. I can't see the connection myself.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
When I have seen references to 'family values' on various sites, there seems to be a strong (and bizarre) idea on some that 'our children' should be protected from even knowing that 'other' people do not live according to the model which Callan superbly set forth.
But of course.
If "our children" are protected from hearing about such things, they will never want to do them.
The fear is (I suspect) that making homosexual marriage legal would encourage "our children" to try it, in much the same way that legalising cocaine would encourage "our children" to try it.
I've actually heard "may all your children be straight" used as a (secular) blessing. Same disease, different symptom.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
My feeling is that the argument against State recognition of homosexual unions has to do with religious belief. If that is the case you should come clean about it. If it is not, please explain how a civil union for homosexuals detracts in any form or fashion from a Church celebration of a a marriage before God, or a State recognition of status.
Tortuf, I think this hits the nail on the head.
I typed a long and crafted much edited reply to this and then my computer swallowed it. I'll try again.
I think the issue of how much Christians should seek to see Christian values reflected in secular society is a vexed one, and one in which, ISTM, the Christian Coalition are all at sea.
American Evangelicals seem to very much to take the view that society should relfect Christian values as much as possible, and seek to see that realised in current day government. Maybe this is because they see their nation as somehow the people of God, I don't know. The downside of this is that they are always teaching law not grace in their political manifestos, which is, in some senses, non-Gospel.
British evangelicals tend to be much more nuanced in these areas, which is partly cultural. But it is also because I think they have a different understanding of how the law should apply to those outside the people of God. Many would, if they thought about it, see the "nation" of the OT fulfilled in the church, and thus the precepts of the law as something that should be reflected in the church family, with an emphasis on interaction with the world being about sharing the message of grace to see more come into the family. Thus the church takes on the role of the "nation" in the OT as being a model of God's grace to the wider world, rather than seeking to impose Christian values on the secular nation. While this means they tend to be less virulent on "family value" issues, it has often led to a closed eye approach to issues like fair trade and social justice, which are "outside" issues, and therefore "covered" by Gospel proclamation.
Me, I'm somewhere between the two. I think merely harping on about moral (or justice!) issues is actually anti-Gospel, for it reinforces the preconception most people have about Christianity that it is about following rules and being good. But I have a strong enough doctrine of common grace to want to see God's values (as I understand them) reflected in society. That's why for example, I would want to vote for a candidate who was pro-life, AND more welcoming towards asylum seekers than our current government.
How did I come to this half way house? Well, a number of ways, but I am basically pro governments making rules that help the Gospel be proclaimed, and do not legitimise, support or lend credence to lifestyles which are going to make it more difficult for people to respond to the Gospel.
So, in short, I don't know whether that counts as a "religious" objection to civil gay marriage or not - but I have tried, as you suggested, to come clean!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
Scripturally 'honour your father and your mother' vies with 'unless you hate family.....', and Paul's teaching on marriage; and presents a complicated and nuanced view of how human beings relate in family, and how that whole relation is to be submitted firstly to God.
So healthy communities are built not on random men and women getting (though often not staying) married, but on relationship with the Creator; that's my understanding of what scripture teaches in terms of community. Scriptural analogies of God as husband and Israel as wife; as the Church as bride and Christ the groom are too easily misinterpreted and abused to over-glorify this particular way of being in relationship.
I would say it's fairly clear that God's expectations of how we relate to one another are founded on 'loving our neighbour as ourselves' and prioritizing him above all else in the loyalty and idolatry scheme of things. And this is how healthy communities, for everyone including family, are created. Everything else is worked out from there.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Are we talking about the marriage covenent as celebrated by the Church, or are we talking about the marriage contract as enforced by the State?
I'm talking about the marriage contract enforced by the State. I have no problems with a religious group making other decisions about who they'd permit to receive a religious ceremony to mark marriage - be that everyone living in the parish, members of this church, people who agree with the doctrines of the church or whatever. I do reserve the right to have my views heard when discussing the question within my own church, I just don't see what right I have to tell others how to do things.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
I presume from the tone of this sentence that you are being facetious. I am single myself, but, with respect, the issue of singles is just throwing dust in the eyes.
The issue here is about what enforceable rights should be given to people in different types of partnerships. If someone is single, they are without a partner. The situations are in no way analagous.
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
Now, if that family unit is to include the biological children of you and your partner then biology does result in the need for your partner to be of the opposite sex. If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, if that family unit is to include the biological children of you and your partner then biology does result in the need for your partner to be of the opposite sex. If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
Because the defintive factor in this for me is not biology. I was going to type more, but I've already posted a long post about why this matters to me on the previous page.
Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
IMO "Family Values" means favouring "people like us", especially if they live "nice" middle-class lives and keep their affairs, alcoholism and wife-beating quiet, or at least have the decency to keep their ex-wives in a nice suburban house and pay for the kids school fees etc.
"Family Values" means looking down on people who are not "like us" and who struggle to bring their kids up as a single parent on a low income, especially if they never married the father(s)/mother(s) of their children because of their own lousy upbringing that makes it hard for them to make lasting relationships. Of course it also means looking down on people who don't have "traditional" relationships.
I think it's probably got more to do with money and the desire for a stable society than families but there you go.
My family values would be something like loving your spouse and kids as yourself, making sure your parents are properly cared for in old age and that you visit them often, having compassion towards those less fortunate than yourself and supporting their family life if you can, and not being smug and self-satisfied.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the family unit is not going to involve children, or children by adoption, then why do partners need to be off opposite sexes?
Because the defintive factor in this for me is not biology. I was going to type more, but I've already posted a long post about why this matters to me on the previous page.
Yes, you've explained very well why this matters to you. And you are entitled to your opinions. Nobody is trying to make you enter into a same-sex partnership, or attacking the value of any male\female partnership you may enter into.
What you haven't explained is why the state should enforce your opinions, or why it not doing so should damage the institution of male\female marriage as you see it. I still don't understand why the solemnisation of a 20-year partnership between 2 men should undermine - say - Moth's marriage. I just don't get it.
(I am very much talking about the state - my views on the Church's role and rights are much the same as Alan's)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Lep, you wrote quote:
I think merely harping on about moral (or justice!) issues is actually anti-Gospel, for it reinforces the preconception most people have about Christianity that it is about following rules and being good. But I have a strong enough doctrine of common grace to want to see God's values (as I understand them) reflected in society. That's why for example, I would want to vote for a candidate who was pro-life, AND more welcoming towards asylum seekers than our current government.
Well I'm absolutely with you there, Lep, (as I said, I don't really think that being pro-life is quite the same as being pro-family values, though I accept that the two views are often held by the same people) but I repeat the point that I cannot see how denying the right for, say, a homosexual man to have his de-facto partner visit him on his death bed because he is not recognised as a legal next-of-kin, could in any way be said to be reflecting God's values in society. Nor could denying that surviving partner the benefit of a dependant's pension. These would be the right of a married couple, and I don't see that offering them to the hypothetical gay couple mentioned in any way devalues the rights of a married heterosexual couple. To me, the argument just doesn't work.
Posted by DMcV (# 545) on
:
That's mince, actually. Until it was airbrushed out of history by the middle class liberals who have taken over the Labour Party, the Labour Party was, in its early years, dominated by Christian influences and favoured what dreary liberals now mantra-ise as 'conservative social values.'
I wouldn't politically try to impose a particular moral structure on society, and as churches we must welcome everybody, however broken their relationship background.
But I'm a bit fed up with the notion that someone can be economically Marxist, politically radical, inherently questioning, but if he doesn't subscribe to the tedious liberal concensus that Gays (the new sacred cows) Are A Dashed Good Thing, he's a reactionary, fundamentalist, bigoted, etc, etc, etc...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
But I'm a bit fed up with the notion that someone can be economically Marxist, politically radical, inherently questioning, but if he doesn't subscribe to the tedious liberal concensus that Gays (the new sacred cows) Are A Dashed Good Thing, he's a reactionary, fundamentalist, bigoted, etc, etc, etc...
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well I'm absolutely with you there, Lep, (as I said, I don't really think that being pro-life is quite the same as being pro-family values, though I accept that the two views are often held by the same people) but I repeat the point that I cannot see how denying the right for, say, a homosexual man to have his de-facto partner visit him on his death bed because he is not recognised as a legal next-of-kin, could in any way be said to be reflecting God's values in society. Nor could denying that surviving partner the benefit of a dependant's pension. These would be the right of a married couple, and I don't see that offering them to the hypothetical gay couple mentioned in any way devalues the rights of a married heterosexual couple. To me, the argument just doesn't work.
We agree on an awful lot more than might be expected Ad!
I suppose public policy makes it clear which relationships are "valued" by according those relationships particular rights. Marriage is currently unique in the rights it accords. By introducing other relationships that confer the same rights marriage becomes one of many relationships that confer those rights.
Male/female marriage becomes one of a number of options for achieving that status. In that sense it is devalued.
I don't think that's hard to understand. I can completely see why people would disagree, but I don't think it's hard to comprehend, is it?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
Sorry, missed the edit window,I called JJ, Ad - avatar confsuion. Apologies both.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Male/female marriage becomes one of a number of options for achieving that status.
I think I see what you mean.
The confusion may be arising because we're not talking about creating "a number of options". This isn't something where people have a choice - they're either one way or another.
Your post gets right back to my post on page 2 (specifically the para starting "The fear is...").
Or so it seems to me.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
No Problem Lep, I feel strangely flattered ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Perhaps we are using the term "devalued" to mean different things, but, try as I might, I can't see any way in which affording to other relationships "parity of esteem", to use a term with which you may be familiar, devalues marriage, any more than, say, affording to Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland parity of esteem devalues either tradition. I just can't see a mechanism by which it might happen. In fact, I would have thought that the very fact that other people previously excluded from the marriage covenant aspire towards it actually increases the esteem of the institution.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
Is it that many people find a plural society very anxiety-inducing?
After all, if everyone is like me, I know I'm right!
If some people are different, maybe I'm wrong?
I don't like the latter option, so I decide I'm right and they're wrong. Problem solved.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
About at the end of my rope with so-called "family values" arbiters. Falwell was on the tube today about the rise in the voters for "morality". I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
Posted by DMcV (# 545) on
:
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere!
The idea is that morality in intimate personal relations is more central to the good of society than overt acts of helping the poor and oppressed.
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression. Therefore any approach to solving social issues that does not include a focus on personal morality, and especially sexual morality, can't succeed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Except that that isn't the case. How exactly does denying gay people the right to marry prevent oppression? Buggered if I know.
Posted by Ddraig (# 7572) on
:
I've just read through this thread and found it very interesting. The value of marriage, and in fact the purpose of marriage is something I've been thinking about a lot as I got engaged to be married earlier this year.
IMHO, the purpose of marriage is fundamentally a 2 stranded thing.
First its a legal contract that gives certain legal, property and financial rights and responsibilities to the two people involved.
Second its a public declaration before the community of love and fidelity between the two people.
When the marriage involves a religious aspect, this second strand also involves making the declaration of love and fidelity before God and the Church.
I can understand (although generally disagree with)people who for religious reasons, do not wish to see two people of the same sex declare their love and fidelity before God and the Church.
What I don't understand is why that should prevent that same couple declaring that they wish to bind themselves together legally and financially in front of their community in a secular way?
I realise as well this gets even more complicated if the same sex couple then wishes to be recognised by their faith community, but I believe thats another (related) issue again.
Liz
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
I presume from the tone of this sentence that you are being facetious. I am single myself, but, with respect, the issue of singles is just throwing dust in the eyes.
The issue here is about what enforceable rights should be given to people in different types of partnerships. If someone is single, they are without a partner. The situations are in no way analagous.
My point was that if, as a single person, I wish to set up a family unit, that is best done with a person of the opposite sex based on a lifetime commitment, in my view.
I understood this:
the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities
to mean that you believed the foundation of a healthy community was dependent on male/female couples commmitted to staying together in lifelong relationship. If that isn't what you meant then apologies.
Of course, the continuing success of any community is partly dependent on this, but I challenged what seemed to me your categoric assertion, as I believe the bases of healthy communities are built on the relationship we have with God, not foundationally on the relationship, life-long or otherwise, between people of the opposite sex.
I'd like to put forward the idea that healthy communities depend as much on people who are not in these male/female life-long relationships as they do on those who are. I don't see anything too dusty in that, as a response to what you've posted.
It is true that one of the issues being discussed on the thread is enforceable rights etc etc. However, I thought the wider issue as per the OP was about the whole issue of 'family values' - what constitutes it, why is it desirable/more desirable etc.
Ironically, this does kind of prove my point that focussing on 'family' however that slippery word is to be defined is merely to narrow the vision that really should apply to all, and not the favoured few.
[ 04. November 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ddraig:
What I don't understand is why that should prevent that same couple declaring that they wish to bind themselves together legally and financially in front of their community in a secular way?
I tried to explain this in my very long post earlier. Obviously not very well. Basically for two reasons:
1) Marriage is an important societal unit, the basic societal unit according to my understanding of the Bible - it should therefore be protected as unique for the good of society.
2) I am not in favour of the state legitimising lifestyles which it will be very difficult for people to leave if they become Christians, and am in favour of innovations which make the proclamation of the Gospel easier, like universal literacy for example.
There's far more to it than that, but that's as snappy as I can make it.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression. Therefore any approach to solving social issues that does not include a focus on personal morality, and especially sexual morality, can't succeed.
There may be some truth in that though - in a world you lot keep telling me is a fallen one - I don't see why you hold out any hope of fixing personal immorality. If personal immorality is going to keep happening (and it is, just as it always has done) it would seem more practical to address the fall out effectively through social policy.
But leaving that aside, this raises the question of what is personally immoral. Is it immoral for gay people to commit to a long-term exclusive committed relationship? - seems entirely moral to me.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that that isn't the case. How exactly does denying gay people the right to marry prevent oppression? Buggered if I know.
It completely depends on whether you believe that this kind of sexuality is moral or immoral.
If it is moral then it serves as a foundation for a free and healthy society and denying it would contribute to oppression.
If it is immoral then it contributes to the forces of oppression, poverty, and marginalization, and denying it would do the opposite.
Society denies all kinds of rights in the name of preventing oppression.
What is so hard about that?
Posted by Ddraig (# 7572) on
:
Thanks for the reply Leprechaun.
I think I now understand your position.
I think where you and I differ is that I do not see a committed long term homosexual relationship as necessarily a barrier to becoming a Christian. (At least no more than a long term commited heterosexual relationship might create a barrier... we are always influenced by those closest to us - if the other partner, a parent or close friend is apposed to a choice we make, it is always difficult, especially a choice as fundamental as conversion to a religion.)
Liz
[ 04. November 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Ddraig ]
Posted by Ellen_404 (# 7953) on
:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
You must present the right with what Jesus taught. It stops them in their tracks.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, Freddy, I'm not going to let you get away that simplistically.
HOW does allowing gay marriage contribute to oppression?
Of course, you could be right and it cuts both ways. If it doesn't contribute to oppression, or any other social ills, perhaps it isn't immoral in the first place...
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
Still rather stunned at what Freddy said. Good to know that as long as I sleep with the right gender then poverty should be of no concern for me, as it will sort itself out. Thanks Ellen, what I don't understand is the silence of other Christians in the face of the growing ranks of Evangelicals in the US. Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellen_404:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
I am disgusted with these people. It would seem the Bible only talks about homosexuality and abortion. Where is their concern for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed...nowhere! When he sells everything he has and gives the money to the poor I'll start listening to him. How are people fooled by these guys, what Bible are they reading???
You must present the right with what Jesus taught. It stops them in their tracks.
No, it doesn't.
Funny thing is, the right-wingers think that they are feeding the hungry, freeing the oppressed etc. etc. etc. the best possible way - by doing it themselves and not letting government foul it up.
It may not work, in our estimation, but there's no point knocking down a straw man with Jesus' teachings.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
The right to have the State recognise your relationship with your chosen life partner. Things like being your partner's next of kin, that you and I would probably take for granted.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
<<grandmother has been X-rayed; suspected cracked/ broken hip.>>
For me, the argument is in part at least about the definition of marriage, which is one man, one woman, ideally for keeps, for life. So that colours everything else I think about this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
1. Should a theological position mean that people who do not agree with your theological position are denied rights?
No, not in most cases that I can think of. No one here is denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. They have the same rights that everyone else does to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. There is no other kind of marriage IMO. Any homosexual has the right to marry.
quote:
2. If marriage is so sacrisanct, and therefore presumably the rights and responsibilities of marriage are to be respected, how does spreading those rights and responsibilities to others (outside of the traditional understanding of marriage) weaken them?
It doesn't weaken them so much as it creates an absurdity. We can no more speak of homosexual marriage than we can of round squares, or six-sided pentagons.
But I believe there is a weakening of morality and virtue within society as a whole by seeking to legislate and encourage this absurdity.
quote:
3. Even if we could all agree that certain behaviours were 'unbiblical' how does that play with a society which does not accept those things and in fact in which we are in a minority?
I would not suggest that we not "accept" homosexual behaviour. But we certainly should not condone it. It is always funny how no one wants the government "in the bedroom," but they want their bedrooms out on the street. In a free society, they have the rights that the rest of us do.
quote:
The church is to be prophetic. The problems arise when the church slips into a quasi-governmental position and starts throwing its weight around.
I think the greater problem is when the church fails to preach the Bible clearly and truthfully without respect for whom it might offend.
On the point of the "right to impose one's morality on others", every single law on the books in any country is an imposition of morality in one form or another. Most law systems in western societies are based upon the Judeao-Christian worldview. Our law says murder is illegal because the Bible say thou shalt not commit murder. There is just no possible way to have any laws that do not impose someone's morals on somebody else. You just cannot separate the two.
Matt
[Quote code added to prevent scroll lock.]
[ 05. November 2004, 00:33: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Ellen_404 (# 7953) on
:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Exactly! Ironically, it was a communist who taught me that when I told him some of the things written by Republicans on a local message board during the buildup to the attack on Iraq. He told me to use Jesus' teachings if I really wanted to make my point. I did & not one could respond. It was amazing. And it worked on almost all issues, except abortion. But now that we have blown up thousands of Iraqi babies...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
HOW does allowing gay marriage contribute to oppression?
Of course, you could be right and it cuts both ways. If it doesn't contribute to oppression, or any other social ills, perhaps it isn't immoral in the first place...
That's right. I'm not saying that gay marriage is immoral or that it contributes to oppression. I'm only saying that IF it is immoral it contributes to oppression. IF it is moral then it helps to do away with oppression.
All immoral things contribute to oppression. For example, drug abuse does harm to individuals, who in turn do harm to their families, which in turn are then less able to serve society, contributing to hardship and the unhappy things that come with it. Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
I understand that it may be impossible to think that an issue like gay marriage could possibly involve immorality. Those who do see it as immoral, however, must necessarily see it as a phenomenon that causes harm and breeds oppression. They may be wrong, but this is the thinking.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, not in most cases that I can think of. No one here is denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. They have the same rights that everyone else does to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. There is no other kind of marriage IMO. Any homosexual has the right to marry.
I see.
So you would have no problem with a legal civil union between homosexuals, which gave all the legal rights of marriage, as long as they called it something else?
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
<<grandmother has been X-rayed; suspected cracked/ broken hip.>>
Gah, that isn't good. My relatives are in a similar position.
quote:
For me, the argument is in part at least about the definition of marriage, which is one man, one woman, ideally for keeps, for life. So that colours everything else I think about this issue.
Fine. Others don't. What are you going to do about them? There is no point in repeatedly stating your moral position as the state is only concerned with the good of all, not just your convenience.
C
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
Ellen, It if great fun to confront a Biblical literalist with the fact that they believe in transubstantiation, as the Bible clearly states "This is my Body, This is my Blood", not this represents, or symbolizes, or commemorates, try and get around that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Matt - our law may at one time have said that Murder is illegal because the Bible says it is, but in fact that is not the original reason - murder was illegal under pagan Saxon law as well. It carried on being illegal both because the Bible said so and because at any given time the vast majority of people have believed it is so, and society is far better off for making it illegal.
It seems to me that in this day and age, in a free country, laws require that:
a) the proscribed action is demonstrably harmful to a third party or to society in general
b) there is a majority view that society is considerably better off by making the action illegal
Morality per se doesn't really come into it.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
I'd guess that you wouldn't find many societies where murder was legal. This isn't an argument either.
C
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I've been reading this thread with a great detail of interest, and not a little amusement from time to time. What struck me is the apparent assumption on the part of some of a link between Christian moral values and civil law. So I've started another thread on the subject.
Still can't work out what "Family Values" actually are, though. Not in terms of some overarching principle or common factor. Paul Feyerabend once said of science that its activities are so diverse that you can't say what science is, beyond merely constructing a list of those activities. I'm beginning to think it might be the same with "Family Values".
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ellen_404:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Biblical literalism is a double edged sword, we need to use it against them.
Exactly! Ironically, it was a communist who taught me that when I told him some of the things written by Republicans on a local message board during the buildup to the attack on Iraq. He told me to use Jesus' teachings if I really wanted to make my point. I did & not one could respond. It was amazing. And it worked on almost all issues, except abortion. But now that we have blown up thousands of Iraqi babies...
He'd probably been reading The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell, where that technique is used to good effect. My sig. is from that book.
Posted by Karin 3 (# 3474) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DMcV:
quote:
AFAICS it's not about thinking they're A Dashed Good Thing™. It's about giving them the same rights we give to everyone else.
Right - so they get education, like everyone else, access to the NHS, protection of the law if they get attacked, banged up if they attack other people, pension rights, legal rights, employment rights, etc, etc...
What, exactly, am I missing here?
Do they get next of kin rights when their partner is ill or dying? They never used to and if their partner's parents or other next of kin don't want to acknowledge them or involve them in decisions it can be very destressing for them.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
... and unless I've missed it while reading this thread, no-one has pointed out that there are no tenancy rights yet either. If one of a heterosexual couple die, the survivor is entitled to continue tenancy of their rented accomodation. This usually applies even if the couple are not actually married. Same-sex couples do not have rights of continued tenancy, and I know of cases as recent as a couple of months ago where the surviving partner was evicted only six weeks after his partner died. They had been together for several years.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
Adeotus, are you sure? I thought Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza now made that unlawful.
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on
:
My partner and I have been together for 11 years and fully intend to stay together till one of us dies - with God's help. I don't want to discuss the validity of this statement here, this discussion clearly belongs in hell.
A legalization of our commitment would make life a lot easier for us. For example would we be able to buy a house and make sure that after one of us has died the other could go on living in it. Here in Germany you can't leave all your property to just one person, a significant amount goes to your next of kin(s) by law. This means that we would have to be able to accumulate enough assets beside a house to be able "pay out" relatives. Even if we were able to achieve that the surviving partner would have to pay huge inheritance taxes compared to an inheriting next of kin who in the case of average properties pays hardly anything in such a case. This means that each of us would have to put additional money aside exactly for that purpose. If one of us did this for the other, the amount would have to be high enough to cover inheritance taxes as well.
We are an economic unit and share all our property jointly. Ironically the state would recognise that if one of us claimed any form of social benefit. In that case we would have to prove that we are not a couple, e.g. by having separate bank accounts, separate departments in the fridge and separate tubes of toothpaste. That's no joke, social workers come to your house and have a look at your living arrangements.
So we can buy a house together like married couples can - only we bear the risk that one of us will lose it in the end.
Lioba
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on
:
Sorry to double post: In the first paragraph I meant Dead Horses, not hell. It's just that this topic tends to make me feel somewhat hellish.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It completely depends on whether you believe that this kind of sexuality is moral or immoral.
If it is moral then it serves as a foundation for a free and healthy society and denying it would contribute to oppression.
If it is immoral then it contributes to the forces of oppression, poverty, and marginalization, and denying it would do the opposite.
Society denies all kinds of rights in the name of preventing oppression.
What is so hard about that?
An excellent summary.
I hope we all notice that as you have defined this issue, the answer can be determined by social science. It is not a matter of religious or other conviction at all. I submit the issue to that bar confident that the facts-- now that for the first time in centuries they can be observed-- will bear out my position.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
That makes it really easy to sort out whether any issue is immoral then.
All those who think it is have to do is demonstrate one tangible way in which it causes harm or contributes to oppression.
I'll bet a penny to a pound I can think of more ways in which Christianity has contributed to oppression than they can for most other "anti-Family Issues"...
[ 04. November 2004, 19:17: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
All immoral things contribute to oppression. For example, drug abuse does harm to individuals, who in turn do harm to their families [...] Things that do not do harm, however, do not contribute to oppression. They are not immoral.
As a definition of morality this is interesting. But I'm not sure what it has to do with Family Values as espoused by the politicians and social commentators we've been talking about on this thread. Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Ellen, It if great fun to confront a Biblical literalist with the fact that they believe in transubstantiation, as the Bible clearly states "This is my Body, This is my Blood", not this represents, or symbolizes, or commemorates, try and get around that.
Be ready for the perhaps stock riposte, as happened to me once, that it is as obviously metaphorical as Jesus's words, "I am the door of the sheepfold."
A good reply is probably first to ask for their core dump on sheepfolds. If they knew what one was, they probably would not be so foolish as to make that objection.
According to a very interesting sermon that I heard some years ago, a sheepfold has only a narrow opening, no door. After being herded into a sheepfold for the night, the sheep are safe from wolves and other marauders outside, which can get to them only through that opening. And the shepherd lies down for the night across that opening, protecting the sheep literally with his own body.
It is really quite a wonderful Eucharistic image. It is somewhat metaphorical, but not nearly as much as one might assume, and to the extent it is literal it only reinforces the literalness of the Words of Institution.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I hope we all notice that as you have defined this issue, the answer can be determined by social science. It is not a matter of religious or other conviction at all. I submit the issue to that bar confident that the facts-- now that for the first time in centuries they can be observed-- will bear out my position.
I don't know what your position is, but this is exactly what I think.
It's just a matter of finding out the facts.
Unfortunately, facts are not easy to establish. It took forever to establish the blindingly obvious fact that smoking is bad for you.
But the good news is that once established, facts are very helpful in persuading people to avoid harmful behaviors.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
As a definition of morality this is interesting. But I'm not sure what it has to do with Family Values as espoused by the politicians and social commentators we've been talking about on this thread. Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
I disagree. This is exactly what they are talking about. Preachers have always told people that immorality would ruin them. Conservatives oppose immorality on the grounds that it will ruin the country.
The fact that the harm connected with particular behaviors is not immediately obvious does not mean that it doesn't exist. If the harm was obvious it wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Most of them, I think, would take quite a different view of personal morality, not one based on a pragmatic judgement of harm or oppression caused.
I disagree. This is exactly what they are talking about. Preachers have always told people that immorality would ruin them. Conservatives oppose immorality on the grounds that it will ruin the country.
The fact that the harm connected with particular behaviors is not immediately obvious does not mean that it doesn't exist. If the harm was obvious it wouldn't be an issue.
But where we perceive harm, and how we balance it against good, is entirely subjective. Establishing the 'facts' is not easy or even always possible.
How do you weigh the harm caused by gay partnerships to society (assuming there is any, which I don't believe) against the harm done to gay individuals described on this thread by denying them partnership rights? How you balance that equation depends entirely on your preconceptions, it is not a measurable thing.
Early this century many people believed that pre-marital sex and illegitimacy were so harmful to society and to individuals that they should be hidden at all costs. Nowadays most people believe that the harm done by throwing girls into mental hospitals and Magdalenes and institutionalising their children was much greater.
Family Values-type politicians, generally, are very keen to focus on the harm done by single parenthood, but not the least bit interested in the harm done by companies that pour toxic chemicals into our rivers, which to them is a forgivable sin in the pursuit of the greater economic good. My perception of the relative harm would be quite the opposite.
There is no black-and-white, quantifiable way of measuring harm - you are chasing a dream.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
There is no black-and-white, quantifiable way of measuring harm - you are chasing a dream.
Sure there is. I'm not chasing a dream. It's just that the evidence takes a long time to gather, and that the argument takes a long time to resolve. It's true that it's not black-and-white, though. These things come in shades of gray.
Social issues change dramatically over the generations. The arguments, and investigations of the evidence, go on for many years. As one issue is resolved others take its place. When people look back on the issues of the past they often seem unbelievably stupid - but they didn't seem that way at the time.
Naturally the perception of harm has a large quotient of subjectivity to it. This is why we argue.
But my point is that the reason why people promote "family values" is that they perceive the opposite to be harmful to society. That is, that immorality is a root cause of poverty, prejudice, violence and social isolation.
Certainly, not everyone believes this. Nevertheless, this was one of the serious issues in this election, and its importance has surprised some people.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But my point is that the reason why people promote "family values" is that they perceive the opposite to be harmful to society. That is, that immorality is a root cause of poverty, prejudice, violence and social isolation.
I'm sorry, I think you are wrong. Or at least not entirely right.
Sure there are people who have thought through the issues as you suggest and come to their conclusions thoughtfully and in good faith, even if (gasp!) they don't agree with me.
But there are just as many, if not more, who dislike gay marriage or single mothers or whatever in the same way that they hate asylum seekers or travellers. Because they've been told these people are bad; because their own insecurity makes them perceive a threat that doesn't exist; because we all need someone to feel superior to; or because when your own life is shitty you look for someone to blame.
And the politicians who promote this are cynical - they know that asylum seekers and single mothers have negligible impact on housing stocks. They know that gay people aren't rampaging about promoting homosexuality in our schools. But it suits them to act outraged and pretend otherwise, to let the papers whip up a frenzy then ride the wave.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
But there are just as many, if not more, who dislike gay marriage or single mothers or whatever in the same way that they hate asylum seekers or travellers. Because they've been told these people are bad; because their own insecurity makes them perceive a threat that doesn't exist; because we all need someone to feel superior to; or because when your own life is shitty you look for someone to blame.
I'm sure this is true. I'm sure there are also people who reject "family values" because they are just plain horny. We don't necessarily have exalted reasons for what we do.
This does not mean that exalted reasons don't exist. They do exist, and they exist on both sides. It's a respectable argument.
I'm responding to those who say that there are no such thing as "family values", or that it is a meaningless term, or that those who think it is a legitimate issue are stupid. I think that it is a credible issue and that the reasoning behind it is not merely fatuous. A reasonable person may believe that sexual morality is an issue that is important enough to sway a national election.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
But Freddy you've already admitted the data aren't in on gay partnerships. Therefore people who believe it causes society harm are NOT making their belief based on reason at all but on something else. Your spin is, in this instance, completely off-base.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
For consistency's sake, I ought to state the following: despite what I've written so far, I do wish Christians would be more concerned with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'. The likes of Newt Gingrich, and indeed many of our churches, would do well to clear up their own backyard - failed marriages etc - before casting stones at others from the 'security' of their own glasshouses
On the issue of whether the state should 'legislate morality', well, it does that all the time, sometimes against the wishes of society. There's always been a tradition of the state 'leading' society on the moral front, whether it be race relations, sex discrimination, or even most recently fox hunting.
Matt
PS Thanks to Tortuf for fixing my crap quote code in the last post and the PM'ed tips
PPS Thanks to cheesy* for concern re my GM - hip op today hopefully
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Matt, burglars burgle houses all the time. That doesn't make it right.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For consistency's sake, I ought to state the following: despite what I've written so far, I do wish Christians would be more concerned with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'. The likes of Newt Gingrich, and indeed many of our churches, would do well to clear up their own backyard - failed marriages etc - before casting stones at others from the 'security' of their own glasshouses
Matt, this paragraph is brilliant, I think I might just frame it. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should not promote marriage (and if indeed you are saying that, does that not undermine your whole point about 'family values')?
Or maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.
Personally, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either marriage is an ideal that should be promoted, or it isn't. If it is, you can hardly complain when the state decides to promote it in ways you don't approve of.
C
[crap code]
[ 05. November 2004, 08:35: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Firstly I think it is important to distinguish between the Christian rite of marriage and marriage as such.
Secondly, people keep harping on about marriage as an 'ideal'. It may well be that but it is not the only ideal that the tradition talks about. Celibacy, for example, is a Christian ideal. So is an active single life open to future marriage or celibacy. The forgetting of these 'other' ideals is one of the many contributing factors to why I think 'family values' is an utter perversion of Christian ethics by the religious Right.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Matt, burglars burgle houses all the time. That doesn't make it right.
So, are you saying that Parliament shouldn't have passed the Race Relations Acts or the Sex Discrimination Acts? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Matt
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For consistency's sake, I ought to state the following: despite what I've written so far, I do wish Christians would be more concerned with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'. The likes of Newt Gingrich, and indeed many of our churches, would do well to clear up their own backyard - failed marriages etc - before casting stones at others from the 'security' of their own glasshouses
Matt, this paragraph is brilliant, I think I might just frame it. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should not promote marriage (and if indeed you are saying that, does that not undermine your whole point about 'family values')?
[crap code]
Er...no...sorry to disappoint you. I said 'less bothered' not 'not bothered at all'. I'm saying that as part of being concerned about family values and defending the traditional meaning of marriage , the church should be far more proactive in bolstering, upholding, encouraging etc marriage within its own ranks - and society at large (and I would wish the state to do likewise, but the primary responsibility lies with the church). There needs to be consistency across the board on this issue, as Karl pointed out I think on p1. Although he and Peter Hitchens make unusual bedfellows, both are agreed that Thatcherism was utterly destructive to traditional working-class family structures, particularly - but by no means exclusively - in the mining commmunities. (See Hichens, 'The Abolition of Britain' - or, alternatively, don't, as it will probably make most of you ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
)
Matt
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Matt, burglars burgle houses all the time. That doesn't make it right.
So, are you saying that Parliament shouldn't have passed the Race Relations Acts or the Sex Discrimination Acts?
Matt
I certainly think that racism and sexism are best overcome by real people in real communities challenging and developing each others' views rather than by State dictat. I support the acts you mention solely as concessions to societal imperfection, and do not want to see the idea extended to the case of marriage.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Freddy you've already admitted the data aren't in on gay partnerships. Therefore people who believe it causes society harm are NOT making their belief based on reason at all but on something else. Your spin is, in this instance, completely off-base.
Are you suggesting that rational decisions are impossible before all the data is in?
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you suggesting that rational decisions are impossible before all the data is in?
Which, of course, makes any innovation impossible to justify on a strictly rational basis. Normally, we make decisions based on models, which may to some extent be supported by rational data.
***
I'd argue that there are two contending meta-principles:
The Classic Golden Rule (GR)
quote:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
and
The First Principle of Metalaw
quote:
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them
sometimes called the Diamond Rule (DR)
The distinctions are subtle, and the applicability of either is tricky. (Consider the applicability of the DR to and by non-sane persons, for example. And consider the applicability of the GR to someone with radically different physical needs than yourself.)
I would hold that many strong advocates of family values emphasize the GR too much - everyone must have this, because I want this for me.
And the counter proposal is that liberals such as I err in applying the DR too much - everyone should get what they want, because I want to get what I want.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Freddy you've already admitted the data aren't in on gay partnerships. Therefore people who believe it causes society harm are NOT making their belief based on reason at all but on something else. Your spin is, in this instance, completely off-base.
Are you suggesting that rational decisions are impossible before all the data is in?
These people made this decision before ANY data was in.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
These people made this decision before ANY data was in.
In the absence of hard data most people rely on anecdotal evidence, not to mention the teachings of their respective religions. This is not irrational either.
That said, I do agree that plenty of people make irrational and emotional decisions about "family values" issues based on nothing more than prejudice and hypocrisy.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That said, I do agree that plenty of people make irrational and emotional decisions about "family values" issues based on nothing more than prejudice and hypocrisy.
One could search long and hard before one found a sentence which better sums up the 2004 election.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
One could search long and hard before one found a sentence which better sums up the 2004 election.
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions until all the data is in. The data just might support what appears to you to be an irrational choice.
By the way, who is collecting this data and how do we find out about it? I'm sure that there must some kind of quantitative research on "family values" related issues.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
By the way, who is collecting this data and how do we find out about it? I'm sure that there must some kind of quantitative research on "family values" related issues.
I was going to ask you that!
That would require quantifying exactly what we mean by family values and, despite that being the point of the thread, I am not sure we've done that.
People tend to burble things along the lines of 'traditional marriage', 'traditional moral values', even (famously in the UK) 'victorian family values'. I think even a cursory glance at history shows that none of these really existed, or at least not in the forms imagined by the speakers. Life has never been that simple. I wonder if that's what "family values" really means to many people, a longing for simplicity in a world that is (and always has been) complicated and scary.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
That would require quantifying exactly what we mean by family values and, despite that being the point of the thread, I am not sure we've done that.
Hmmm. Let me see. I think people who think this way think of things such as the following as conducive to a happy and productive life.
- Limited sexual behavior before marriage, preferably no pre-marital sex at all.
- G-rated movies, TV, internet.
- Monogamous heterosexual marriage.
- Marriages that stay together.
- Well-disciplined children raised in a wholesome and happy home.
- Whole family going to church every Sunday
- Staying in school, good education
And, if I'm not mistaken, they see things such as the following as conducive to a less happy and less productive life.
- Pornography
- Pre-marital sex
- Divorce
- Adultery
- Alternative sexual lifestyles
- Drug and alcohol abuse
- Unsupervised or undisciplined children
- Lack of religion in home.
- Abortion
- Abuse of various kinds
I'm pretty sure that there are quantitative measures that exist relating to each one of these items, and others like them. While most of them are too complex, or too incomplete, or too biased, to make credible cause-effect judgments about, they do indicate something. These measures correlate the incidence of the above to things such as:
- Reported contentment with life
- Suicide rates
- Income levels
- Health
- Longevity
- Criminal behavior
- Other measures of stability, happiness and productivity.
It is hard to believe that the knowledge-base will not continue to increase, accounting for as many variables as possible, and helping us to know what really is helpful, what is harmful, and what some people think is harmful but really isn't, in people's lives.
Meanwhile, I guess people just need to go with their gut feelings about these things - or what their religions teach - or what they themselves actually believe based on their knowledge and observations.
[ 05. November 2004, 15:52: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Hmmm. Let me see. I think people who think this way think of things such as the following as conducive to a happy and productive life.
Are people promoting "family values" promoting things that result in greater individual happiness, the best for a family (assumed parents with children) or wider society. Or do they actually think that what they promote will result in all three? And, indeed, are they assuming "happiest is best"?
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
You didn't just double post there, did you Alan?
C
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Are people promoting "family values" promoting things that result in greater individual happiness, the best for a family (assumed parents with children) or wider society. Or do they actually think that what they promote will result in all three? And, indeed, are they assuming "happiest is best"?
Good question. I would guess all three. And I have no idea if they think happiest is best. I would tend to equate the two myself, at least over the long run.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
Well, Freddy, I guess it may all boil down to a fundamental disagreement over the government's right (or lack thereof) to restrict personal freedom without a compelling state interest. From my perspective, the primarily role of government is not to use coercion (subtle and not-so-subtle) to "encourage" people into a particular lifestyle -- even if there is empirical data to suggest that that lifestyle is in some way superior. Rather it is to facilitate the well-ordered exercise of personal autonomy so that individuals, not the government, can make up their own minds. The Church is free to push for "G-rated movies, TV, Internet," but I would submit that it's none of the state's business.
One concern I have with the family values contingent is my perception that they want to shift the hard work of parenthood from mom and dad to the government. Rather than having to play the bad cop with their own kids, (e.g., denying them access to R-rated movies, forbidding them from playing violent videogames, monitoring their TV intake), they instead want the government to do their job for them. The irony, of course, is that it's now the Republicans who want more significant government intrusion into personal freedom.
Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Interesting list, Freddy. But from outside, "family values" seems to mean only two-parent families, mothers staying at home full time, and a bunch of other things that explicitly exclude a whole bunch of people. After all, how do you force children to have two parents?
Up here, the people who use the term are quite clear that they consider all gays are outside the concept (because no one actually is, it's just a bunch of perverts trying to make us all do those disgusting things). They also tend to exclude non-whites from the model.
Around here, it also seems to be code for imposing a particular set of values on people who do not share the belief system that validates the values. Frankly, as a relatively liberal Christian, I'd be excluded too.
As for "Victorian" family values (addressed to someone else), my grandmother was born less than the normal 9 months after her parents married. They'd been together for a number of years. But in late victorian rural communities, it was not unusual to wait until a baby was on the way before getting married.
John
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Well, Freddy, I guess it may all boil down to a fundamental disagreement over the government's right (or lack thereof) to restrict personal freedom without a compelling state interest.
I think that the disagreement is over what constitutes a compelling state interest.
Certainly if something is proven to do substantial harm to others, such as second-hand smoke, it is within a government's right to regulate it. Government regulates education, even though plenty of people think that it is none of their business.
How do you determine what is a compelling state interest?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Interesting list, Freddy. But from outside, "family values" seems to mean only two-parent families, mothers staying at home full time, and a bunch of other things that explicitly exclude a whole bunch of people.
That's not the way I see it. It really isn't about "families". It's about certain types of moral behavior - the assertion being that immorality hurts everyone, not just children.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Freddy wrote: How do you determine what is a compelling state interest?
Well, here’s my definition, which is a loose paraphrase of the Supreme Court’s. First, the burden is on the party seeking to impinge on personal freedom to prove empirically – not anecdotally or based on the tenets of their religion – societal harm. Second, any infringement must be the least restrictive alternative, e.g., it’s lawful to ban smoking in certain close quarters based on conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating the harm of second-hand smoke, but it’s not lawful to ban smoking outright.
That’s one of the reasons the Court struck down the Child Online Protection Act. The government cannot restrict adults’ access to lawful material “for the good of the children” <cue the maudlin hand-wringing that typically accompanies that tired phrase> when less restrictive alternatives, e.g., Mom and Dad caring enough to take five minutes to install a filter, will accomplish the desired result without the accompanying infringement on personal freedom.
quote:
Freddy wrote: But my point is that the reason why people promote "family values" is that they perceive the opposite to be harmful to society. That is, that immorality is a root cause of poverty, prejudice, violence and social isolation.
quote:
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression.
So explain something to me, Freddy. Gainfully employed, financially solvent, middle-aged adults have no children, mind their own business, keep their private life private, and make exemplary contributions to their community. Explain to me how their fully consensual, monogamous, respectful, and loving intimate relationship with a person to whom they are not married leads to “poverty, prejudice, violence, and social isolation” – not to mention “marginalization and oppression.”
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
From Freddy:
quote:
In other words, in a broad social sense, immorality in the realm of intimate personal relations is the cause of poverty, marginalization and oppression.
Freddy, while to some extent this might be true, what about factors like employers not paying workers a living wage and refusing to provide healthcare benefits, merely to increase their bottom line? In the area of the country where I live, 2 adults working full time for minimum wage with 1 child live below the effective poverty level, will not have employer-provided healthcare, and will be unable to afford to purchase it on their own. This has little if anything to do with their personal sexual morality or lack thereof, and everything to do with a willingness to exploit others for monetary gain or power.
And here's where I have a problem with the religious right in the US. The vast majority of them (Falwell, Christian Coalition, et al) are all about prohibiting immoral personal behavior, but the minute supporting the family affects their pocketbook, they're yelling about undue government interference and voting against Head Start, raising the minimum wage, and healthcare for the poor. It just seems like what they're really supporting is "family values with no impact on my pocketbook."
And I agree with Presleytarian about "the state as parent," so perhaps I should amend it to be "family values with no impact on my pocketbook or undue effort on my part."
Regards,
Sienna
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Freddy wrote: How do you determine what is a compelling state interest?
Well, here’s my definition, which is a loose paraphrase of the Supreme Court’s.
I like your definition. I think that's right. I always appreciate your informed legal views.
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
So explain something to me, Freddy. Gainfully employed, financially solvent, middle-aged adults have no children, mind their own business, keep their private life private, and make exemplary contributions to their community. Explain to me how their fully consensual, monogamous, respectful, and loving intimate relationship with a person to whom they are not married leads to “poverty, prejudice, violence, and social isolation” – not to mention “marginalization and oppression.”
If it is not harmful then it does not lead to any of those things. It is a good and respectable relationship.
If you believe it is a harmful relationship, however, then it would lead to those things by virtue of the fact that whatever harm it causes would be likely to spread to others. No man is an island.
Adulterous situations, for example, lead to poverty and violence because of their disruptive effects on families and individuals. A certain percentage of this kind of behavior is tolerable and understandable, and society is able help out and fill in the gaps. When the numbers increase, however, it stresses the system and causes real problems, including poverty and violence.
So there are two questions. One is whether it is a harmful relationship in the first place. Secondly, even if it is, is the harm likely to spread to others. If the answer is "no" to either of these questions then there is no problem.
I would guess that "family values" advocates would say that if society approves of people living together outside of marriage then the behavior is likely to increase, along with the problems that accompany these relationships. This is a prejudice on their part. I don't know whether or not the evidence would bear that out.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
what about factors like employers not paying workers a living wage and refusing to provide healthcare benefits, merely to increase their bottom line? In the area of the country where I live, 2 adults working full time for minimum wage with 1 child live below the effective poverty level, will not have employer-provided healthcare, and will be unable to afford to purchase it on their own. This has little if anything to do with their personal sexual morality or lack thereof, and everything to do with a willingness to exploit others for monetary gain or power.
I agree. I'm not saying that a person's sexual morality has much to do directly with their personal finances. The world is full of immoral rich people and poor people who are good as gold.
The idea behind "family values" is that society would be better off in every way if everyone lived moral lives. Naturally this isn't going to happen, but the more people that do, the better off we'll all be.
Some would argue that there is nothing that government can do, or ought to do, to change those percentages, but others would disagree.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
And can't it just as easily be argued that the refusal to extend to gay people the same civil rights afforded to straight people also leads to “poverty, prejudice, violence, and social isolation” – not to mention “marginalization and oppression.”
BTW, kudos to Freddy for explaining his position cogently. I'm not buying it, mind you, but at least I understand from whence he's coming.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
And can't it just as easily be argued that the refusal to extend to gay people the same civil rights afforded to straight people also leads to “poverty, prejudice, violence, and social isolation” – not to mention “marginalization and oppression.”
I completely agree.
It all hinges on whether homosexuality is a harmful and immoral lifestyle, or whether it is just as legitimate and good as a hetero one.
But I will leave that to the dead horses to fight over. I'm sure that there are good arguments on both sides down there.
In any case, that's how I think the voters who said that they voted for Bush because of moral values saw the issues.
Thanks for the kudos. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to any particular point of view, except to explain that "family values" is not just simple-minded gibberish.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As for "Victorian" family values (addressed to someone else), my grandmother was born less than the normal 9 months after her parents married. They'd been together for a number of years. But in late victorian rural communities, it was not unusual to wait until a baby was on the way before getting married.
Um, if I'm 'someone else', that would have been pretty much exactly my point. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In any case, that's how I think the voters who said that they voted for Bush because of moral values saw the issues.
Maybe this says more about me than it does you, but I think there is an element of innocence in your belief that most of these people thought through the issues in anything like the way you have been doing here. It was a kneejerk reaction to cynical, and successful, political manipulation.
Posted by leonato (# 5124) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Adulterous situations, for example, lead to poverty and violence because of their disruptive effects on families and individuals.
I would agree with you here. Isn't it interesting though that no "family values" campaigner I have ever heard of has argued for criminalising, or otherwise punishing adultery. Yet this is perhaps the one thing that does most to undermine families.
Why do people wish to criminalise abortion, refuse equal rights to gay relationships etc., but accept adultery as immoral but legal?
I think that it smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
You know, I found myself thinking, along about Wednesday afternoon, that I would love to have a party that supports the values I was taught by my family.
Things like, "Take care of the children." Make sure all children have plenty to eat, warm coats, proper shoes, and adequate health care. If they need glasses, they should get glasses. If their parents can't read to them or teach them what they need before they're school age, get them enrolled in Head Start. They should be able to go to the library, to museums, to the zoo.
"Take care of the old folks." If they are no longer able to provide food, clothing, and health care for themselves, we owe it to them (and to ourselves) to provide it for them.
"Clean up your own mess." Littering, or polluting, should be unthinkable. You don't scrape your dirty dinner dishes onto the neighbor's sofa. Even so, you don't pour your sewage into the streams, or your soot into the air.
"Don't spend money you don't have." Governments have to be fiscally responsible, even as families and individuals do.
"Save for a rainy day." If the government is running a surplus, that doesn't mean you should immediately cut taxes. The bridges that were built last year will need to be replaced eventually. Storms and epidemics happen. Keeping some cash on hand will allow us to get through tough times when they come. And they will.
"Mind your own business." As long as the choices other people make aren't interfering with you, there's no reason for you to interfere with them.
That sort of thing.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
So, when do we start that party, josephine? I'm game.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Well, Freddy, there is research in these areas, though in the nature of things none of it can be called definitive. Off the top of my head, since I don't have time to do a lit review:
1. Being raised by a same sex couple has no deleterious effects on children's mental health, nor does it affect their sexual orientation. It does affect their attitudes toward same-sex relationships, making them more accepting of them.
2. Divorce is stressful for children and has harmful effects, but it is probably not more harmful than living in an intensely conflictual family situation. Both lead to anxiety about intimate relationships in adult life.
3. A securely attached emotional relationship with a primary caregiver in early childhood is critical to later mental health. This is not necessarily a function of who provides the physical care.
4. Fathers are important. Boys who have warm relationships with their fathers in childhood, and girls who have warm relationships with their fathers in adolescence, have fewer mental health problems.
The anthropologist Raoul Naroll did a lot of research and theorizing about social structures that lead to healthy, happy societies. He developed the concept of "moralnets" (moral networks), social networks that support a moral consensus. He concluded that Norway was the most nearly ideal society on the planet. (I tried to find links to his work, but found only bibliographical information--try your nearest academic library.)
The research is piecemeal, necessarily, and it is the nature of human/social science that the facts themselves are contextual and so subject to change. To suggest that there is one eternal ideal blueprint for a society flies in the face of all the evidence accumulated by anthropology, sociology, and psychology over the last century or so.
The "family values" I grew up with are much like Josephine's:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Be kind.
3. Help people when they need it.
4. Clean up after yourself.
5. Don't be wasteful.
6. Be there when your family needs you.
7. Stand up for what you believe is right, regardless of the consequences.
Stuff like that.
Timothy
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
The family values expressed by josephine and Timothy the Obscure are the ones I was brought up with too and I like the idea of collecting them together. In addition to those (and admittedly with some overlap) I would include:
1. Always do your best; make the most of your talents.
2. Be honest in all your dealings. Whether it is a penny or a thousand pounds, never take anything that belongs to someone else.
3. Respect other people and their property.
4. If you have done something wrong, own up.
5. Know how to judge wisely between conflicting imperatives: for example, the duty to be polite usually trumps the duty to be honest when asked to comment on someone's appearance.
6. We are your parents and whatever happens we love you unconditionally.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Maybe this says more about me than it does you, but I think there is an element of innocence in your belief that most of these people thought through the issues in anything like the way you have been doing here. It was a kneejerk reaction to cynical, and successful, political manipulation.
You are far too cynical.
I think that my aunt Mary-Clyde succinctly expressed the thoughts of most Americans when she said: "Hell if I'm gonna let a bunch o' damn fornicators run the damn country."
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Well, Freddy, there is research in these areas, though in the nature of things none of it can be called definitive. Off the top of my head, since I don't have time to do a lit review:
1. Being raised by a same sex couple has no deleterious effects on children's mental health, nor does it affect their sexual orientation. It does affect their attitudes toward same-sex relationships, making them more accepting of them.
This is great. I'm sure that studies like this will eventually have an effect on public policy.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leonato:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Adulterous situations, for example, lead to poverty and violence because of their disruptive effects on families and individuals.
I would agree with you here. Isn't it interesting though that no "family values" campaigner I have ever heard of has argued for criminalising, or otherwise punishing adultery. Yet this is perhaps the one thing that does most to undermine families.
I completely agree. It doesn't seem right. Adultery has been illegal at various times in history in various places. But not here and not now.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
What fascinates me is that the religious Right seem to think that Christian sexual ethics (which they radically misinterpret, but that's by the way) can be logically divorced from the wider practices of Christian belief and worship. The State can encourage 'Christian' marriage, without compelling married individuals to receive the support and grace offered to married people within the life of the Church. But this is surely nonsense, the witness offered by the Christian living of a sexual ethic, only makes sense in relation to the wider christic orientation of that life. Given that we do not hold with forcing people into belief, and in fact cannot do so, why do so many people think they may do so in regard to one implication/ expression of belief.
(Of course, what I think is going on is that the State, in an attempt to discipline reproduction and social mores, expropriates 'Christian' 'ethics' to its own ends. The Church, which unlike the State, has the true means to bring about social peace, in the graceful justice of the Kingdom, should refuse to let politicians get away with this theft, and denounce these latter-day Pharisees in the strongest terms.)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
What fascinates me is that the religious Right seem to think that Christian sexual ethics (which they radically misinterpret, but that's by the way) can be logically divorced from the wider practices of Christian belief and worship.
Well wait a minute. Why isolate sexual ethics here? The same could be said of all ethics.
There isn't a country in the world that does not enforce some form of the ethical standards that are taught by religions. The question is always whether there is a compelling state reason for doing so.
The problem is only that it is hard to know where to draw the line between allowing personal freedoms and enforcing standards for the good of the people as a whole.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Since I think the notion of 'the good of the people as a whole' is irreducibly ideological and functions to conceal the operation of power by some of 'the people' at the expense of others, I don't buy that line of argument.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Since I think the notion of 'the good of the people as a whole' is irreducibly ideological and functions to conceal the operation of power by some of 'the people' at the expense of others, I don't buy that line of argument.
Surely you're not claiming that government should have no role in promoting and enforcing ethical behaviors. How about bigamy, age of consent, or child labor laws?
I think that you really must be saying that the "good of the people" is difficult to quantify, and that government therefore ought to err on the side of minding its own business. Which I agree with.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The anthropologist Raoul Naroll did a lot of research and theorizing about social structures that lead to healthy, happy societies. He developed the concept of "moralnets" (moral networks), social networks that support a moral consensus. He concluded that Norway was the most nearly ideal society on the planet. (I tried to find links to his work, but found only bibliographical information--try your nearest academic library.)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Norway? That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Or at least since Thursday, anyway.
C
Posted by halibut (# 3115) on
:
Why do people talk as if "morality" were strictly a matter of individual behaviour?
I wholeheartedly agree that immorality causes poverty, crime, violence, and various other social ills. Because unjust war, "flexible" labour practices, tax regimes which further advantage the rich, and inadequate public health and education standards are immoral.
Yes, I vote for moral standards and values! Like peace and justice!
As for private morality, well I had a very vigorous youth, and I'm utterly impenitent about it. Does that mean I'm wreaking social havoc?
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by halibut:
As for private morality, well I had a very vigorous youth, and I'm utterly impenitent about it. Does that mean I'm wreaking social havoc?
"Vigorous youth"? Is that the new euphemism?
Sure beats "sordid past" and the other phrases I use. (I predict Sine's gonna love this new expression, too.) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on
:
Brava, Josephine!
Here is a question that I'll probably take unanswered to my grave. It seems to me that, for many centuries, Christ was the one who would transform us - yet, since perhaps Hanoverian times, it was the family that was supposed to transform society and the world. I never could figure out why...
As I mentioned, I am of Mediterranean background. We are basically anarchists, and hold on to the family as the only unit in which there is even a semblance of stability. There certainly is no element of 'and this will make me a good citizen' or anything of the kind - the empire was so long ago that there is the relief of no longer having to compete.
One of the things with 'family values' that makes me uneasy is that it is so focussed on human control, rules, laws, and so forth. Whether it is excessive parental control, or that of the church or the state, it seems to make the individual disappear. Everything is conformity - and the Christian unit, as it were, is not universal Church but family.
I cannot see how we can be open to transformation when the threat is always from the outside - every unit, family included, has sufficient problems within. And the 'sin' that is the threat is never 'my own.'
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
[qb]
As for "Victorian" family values (addressed to someone else), my grandmother was born less than the normal 9 months after her parents married. They'd been together for a number of years. But in late victorian rural communities, it was not unusual to wait until a baby was on the way before getting married.
Um, if I'm 'someone else', that would have been pretty much exactly my point.
Oh I was just trying to add evidence, certainly not trying to contradict you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
John
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that you really must be saying that the "good of the people" is difficult to quantify, and that government therefore ought to err on the side of minding its own business. Which I agree with.
No, I mean that in many senses the whole concept of 'the good of the people' is an ideological obfuscation, suggesting communities of shared interest where none exist.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Freddy wrote: I think that my aunt Mary Clyde succinctly expressed the thoughts of most Americans when she said: "Hell if I'm gonna let a bunch o' damn fornicators run the damn country."
Well, I can hardly disagree with Miss Mary Clyde, considering the harm done to this country by a president who divorced his wife and knocked up his girlfriend.
Damn that Ronald Reagan.
[ 07. November 2004, 00:39: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No, I mean that in many senses the whole concept of 'the good of the people' is an ideological obfuscation, suggesting communities of shared interest where none exist.
I am sorry to hear that. Do you believe in any government at all then?
I thought that one of the whole ideas of democracy was to allow people to express their shared interests.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Damn that Ronald Reagan.
And here I went and shook his hand. Shoulda known better!
I did once refuse to shake a president's hand, on the grounds that he was a murderer. But then, he wasn't an American. I'm not sure he even noticed. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
No, I mean that in many senses the whole concept of 'the good of the people' is an ideological obfuscation, suggesting communities of shared interest where none exist.
I am sorry to hear that. Do you believe in any government at all then?
I thought that one of the whole ideas of democracy was to allow people to express their shared interests.
Ideally not, no.
Shared interests? Good. The point is that we need to create shared interests before pretending they exist. They will really only fully exist eschatologically, although they are prefigured at the eucharist - however, they can be made more fully present in historical human societies. There is no community of interest between the profiteering boss and the sweatshop worker as regards employment legislation. Or between the rainforest dweller and the logger. And so on. Let's work for justice and that will make talk about democracy sound a little less hollow.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0