dk

I've supported my opinion on two levels.

1) Presented the nuclear family as the archetype that constructs civilization. This is an absolute argument that most people find unacceptable because it allows for no exception.

So to address gay marriage as the exception to the rule

2) I've shown gay culture promulgates promiscuous sexual values that inspire gay patrons to decimate themselve with incidence of MSM.
3) I've shown gay leadership has betrayed their constituency for power.
4) I’ve shown that gay culture spills degeneratively into the greater society through the public square.

dk

Main Entry: dis·in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: (")di-"sin-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1939
: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth ----- © 2003 by Merriam-Webster
---------------

Safer sex is more accurate. I suspect the "Safe Sex" label has something to do with the Puritan roots in all elements of US society. Question, this side of the Atlantic they sanction anonymous gay sex at gay venues to collect information on hiv/aids, and educate gays that frequent the establishments. What's the policy across the Atlantic?

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
Main Entry: dis·in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: (")di-"sin-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1939
: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth ----- © 2003 by Merriam-Webster

This is why I didn't understand you saying it was disinformation. The part I quoted clearly states that condom use does not protect you 100% from pregnancy or disease, and therefore they're not spreading false info, deliberately or otherwise.

Safer sex is more accurate. I suspect the "Safe Sex" label has something to do with the Puritan roots in all elements of US society. Question, this side of the Atlantic they sanction anonymous gay sex at gay venues to collect information on hiv/aids, and educate gays that frequent the establishments. What's the policy across the Atlantic? [/QUOTE]

As far as I know, no such things exist. HIV/AIDS statistics are gathered from test results. As transmission is greater via het sex in Britain, there is be more concentration on that issue. I will try to find some info to back these up.

IIRC when I was at school we dealt with HIV transmission/prevention in the context of the biology course (as opposed to having "sex ed"). Of course, things have probably changed in the last 10 years.
TW

Bill Snedden

This is indeed a veritable train wreck of a thread! Face it, dk, it's a market economy and we're not buying...

Normally, I would be inclined to ignore someone who is apparently unable to determine when satire is being used to ridicule an argument one actually does not support (in re: dk's apparent inability to determine Michael Swift's actual point), but against my better judgement:

You certainly did present that as an argument. However, unless I missed it, you included no citations from anthropological or sociological studies to back it up.

However, it certainly seems reasonable to assume it true. It fits well with intuitions. But what in all of that forces us to assume it must remain true for society to survive?

I would argue that the "nuclear" family (as you've defined it) formed the basis for modern society as it was the lowest common denominator for social grouping at the time. In other words, as human societies were forming, man-woman-child groups were the pre-eminent social groups; Man simply hadn't yet evolved very far past simple biological imperatives.

However, modern society most certainly does not operate on this model. The "nuclear" family is autocratic in operation; modern successful societies are democratic. So, the argument would seem to be flawed on at least one level as the praxis of the society-at-large no longer follows the function of its assumed model.

In addition, such an argument (dk's) necessarily assumes that society cannot change; that the original building blocks cannot be improved or altered. This would seem an unreasonable assumption in light of the fact that Man has certainly changed over the millenia since he first found it necessary to operate as part of a social group. Stagnation is no key to success.

It even assumes, without argument, that the "nuclear" family model always provides the best model in which children can be raised. I've seen several studies that demonstrate the importance in child-rearing of both male and female influences, but none that demonstrate conclusively that harm follows when the male and female influences fail to cohabit or be bonded in legal matrimony.

Besides which, dk himself noted that "The nuclear family to varying degrees throughout the history of Western Civilization to some degree has been corrupt. Murder, incest, violence, envy, cruelty, oppression, infidelity, adultery, and betrayal have been part of all human family, and the nuclear family from time immortal..." How amazing that our successful civilization could continue to prosper when it has such a rotten foundation!

Finally, "nuclear" family has been defined by dk to be "man-woman-child(ren)". However, who says this has to be and remain the basis for "civilization"? Studies demonstrate that loving/supportive relationships are of primary importance to child-rearing outcomes. Shouldn't we care more about this than sex? The idea that biological relationships between the participants necessarily affect the overall "family" model is simply fallacious. It completely ignores the realities of adoption and the acquired nature of parental relationships. Who a child regards as his/her parent has little or nothing to do necessarily with the biological relationship between the two. Millions of adoptive parents and children can testify to the reality of this.

Can we assume, then, that if a drug were to be developed tomorrow that rendered all MSM contact 100% safe with regard to STDs, that you would withdraw your objections based on this point?

You also realize that in order to be consistent with this reasoning, you must promote lesbian relationships over heterosexual ones as they are even safer yet.

The idea that the "safeness" of a sexual practice wrt the possibility of disease transmission somehow determines its morality seems highly questionable. If true, it would militate against virtually all forms of sexual contact as they are all open to transmission of disease. The idea that "safer" practices are "more moral" is also highly questionable due to the difficulty of drawing lines. Where is "safe" if not 100%?

As a principle by which the morality of a sexual act might be determined it is effectively useless, so it would be unwise to rely on it.

Simply put: irrelevant. So has current U.S. goverment administration (arguably). What has that got to do with gay marriage?

Well, as your definition of "degenerative" seems to be based on an unsound moral principle, I guess we can write this off as well.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Kimpatsu

Well written, Bill. As this train wreck has derailed much like DK's one-track mind, maybe you should close the thread.
Best,

dk

dk: It’s the defenders of such abject hate speech that illuminates the psychopathological mentality that gay culture projects.

Before I respond we need to iron out some nuances.

1. Bill Snedden:You certainly did present that as an argument. However, unless I missed it, you included no citations from anthropological or sociological studies to back it up.
   dk: I gave Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski, 1884-1942, Professor of Anthropology. But will add the Senator Patrick Monahan’s, and The Moynihan Report published in 1965.
2. Bill Snedden: I would argue that the "nuclear" family (as you've defined it) formed the basis for modern society as it was the lowest common denominator...
   dk: My reference was to civilization i.e. the developed organizations within a culture or society. The nuclear family in and of itself isn’t a highly developed organization, but an element. To say the nuclear family is the basis of modern society presents an amorphous because society contains so many primitive elements that are uncivilized and quit savage.

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here. Since many elements of modern society are uncivilized and inhuman we are out of synch, or context. I don't disagree with your statement, but it simply has no bearing on what I said. I would accept the Modern Nation State as contextually equitable. I would argue the basis of the modern nations remains human beings, which are in turn based upon the nuclear family.

I think the confusion stems from artificial persons. For example corporations are persons created by an act of legislation, so economic commerce is based on the corporate model. Yet it would be fallacious to argue Western Civilization was based on the corporate model. Further money is a virtual concept absent any real substance, whereas people are physical beings with bodies.

Lets talk about the inner city urban areas where often 90% of the families are headed by single mothers, but these xfamilies are impoverished, more than half the men raised in these families are incarcerated for felony crimes. These xfamilies are the byproduct of a failed Federal Welfare program. .

Kimpatsu

This is recent?

dk

Its relevant, because for the first time in the history of Western Civilization there are, as Bill Snedder asserts, many xfamilies. Its an issue. I think its important to mark the event, and review the effect.

yguy

This betrays a shallow understanding of both traditional marriage and democracy. In the latter, the people, in whom ultimate power is vested, elect lawmakers, law enforcers, and judges who act as administrators; thus, when a policeman pulls you over, you don't obey because he is the boss, but because you have agreed to LET him be the boss as regards traffic law. Likewise, in a traditional family, the wife "elects" the husband just as we elect a President; and just as we agreed during WWII to be subject to various rationing measures by implied consent, the wife agrees to let the husband have the final say in the decision-making process. Therefore, the contrast is not nearly as sharp as you would make it.

It doesn't assume anything of the sort, if I read it correctly. The question is, on what basis do we determine what constitutes improvement? From the POV of many teenage students, the freedom to copulate on the HS campus would be an improvement - and in the short term, no one would be the worse off. It is only when one looks towards succeeding generations that the price for such folly manifests itself.

You assume that man is a product of evolution, which has never been verified.

What the hell do you need studies for? Are you unaware of the problems of blacks in the inner city? If you don't think lack of a father in the home is related to gang activity, then brother, you don't think too good.

Kimpatsu

These reports have long since been superceded and discredited by more recent research.