Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:54 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:36 pm
Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.
This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.
None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.
Your biological claim is nonsense.
Nope. It's just obvious and certain.
To have a child, you need one parent of one sex, and one of another. And no other arrangment is even capable. One egg, one sperm. End of story.
Hmmmm, oh yes, ....like how Dalmer's parents were. Oh wait, that ended badly.
Okay, the kids who shot up Columbine? No, ....they too had good Christian parents.
Your stance implies that the faults of social disorder comes specifically from something 'non-traditional'. Everything that happens today can be defined by you as 'non-traditional' if it is a derogatory coinciding factor and one that you just don't like. Like, for instance, would you define all those violators in the Capital Hill incident of Jan 6th last year as having something 'wrong' with them even though they represent those who support your same favor for 'nuclear family' ideals.
"Marriage" originally was a public formal announcement that 'legitimized' one's offspring with the specific concern of making laws regarding INHERITANCE issues including liability (where one COULD inherit debt.
The need at all for keeping "marriage" in legal contexts are to allow society know formally who is responsible for offspring BUT include the formal union of couples in any
contractual obligations, not just criminal liability. But the reason for the right-wing stance for 'family' is to contrast ANYTHING in law that is NOT RELIGIOUSLY defined.
I already mentioned how this actually proves how and why only the Right-wing ideals foster "supremacists" of the fascist form: the 'nuclear family' argument is meant only to ENHANCE those who believe in restricting favor to one's own with arrrogant neglect of all others.
Personally, I would remove the term "marriage" itself and replace it ONLY with "unions" and any more specified subclassification where it deals with more specific concerns. So, "unions with children" for instance might be better to clarify the justification for legal contractual obligations of parents or other guardians over children. But the fact that this obvious solution should have been proposed but hasn't is ONLY due to religious people's beliefs in keeping the term, "marriage" in law rather than "union" which for some removes the 'legitimacy' of them.
But the key issue regarding "family" as a que for Rightwing issues is just meaning that you do not like governments serving social service concerns like welfare or healthcare and WANT to encourage the masses to be DUMB to the effectiveness of abuses against them where they have no means to defend themselves. The capitalistic ideal is to have a "right to LIE" because the most opportunistic means to con someone is to deceive them in order to take more than you give in trades. UNFAIR trading could not be effectively defended against in pro-rightwing ideals and favors EXPLOITATION especially when you also simultaneosly POSIT law that go against non-wealthy-people based collectives. You certainly don't propose laws that defeat collectives that are based upon irrational beliefs like religion even though this factor most significantly represents why one would believe in Supremacist type thinking.
EVERYONE recognizes that 'family' is STRONGER most specifically if there are two (or more) guardians [including any other members that contribute to raising others, like siblings, aunts, uncles, or grandparents.] The biggest reason for family breakdowns are the LACK of common wealth supports that are primarily based first and foremost on one's ECONOMIC background. This does NOT mean that the child requires to be IN POWER of this 'wealth' but that the parents and other 'family' supports that contribute to making one well adjusted contribute. They are ALL monetarily related. Even the demeanor of a parent who is not stressed about whether they can eat is monetary related.
"Family" values regarding 'family' welfare coincides with "wealth" alone. Those who have family issues are not ABLE to demand that they HAVE good families. It is 'inherited' in some way. As such, if you sincerely wanted to help the 'nuclear family' (with most specificity), we need a system that assures parents are able to not be affected BY ecomomic imbalances due to inherent factors. This cannot be done where no social services exist to help one BE 'socially' equivalent in value. This is an "infrastructure" issue just as much as a bridge or road is. So the ONLY reason for your stance is to DISEMPOWER anyone from EXPOSING fraud and deception where it EMPOWERS the exploiting opportunism that defines how one 'capitalizes' over another.
