Do you seriously believe

Our family values and morals are pretty much controlled by the programming industry. aka Television.

In most yes... and thats a shame too.

Just look at VH1, MTV, TrueTV, and all these stupid reality shows.... OMG we are soooo fucked!
:omg:

The family values of Desperate Housewives? The Kardashians? Paris hilton?
Or even the old sitcoms where the family members are always decieving other family members and such.

And it has reached the point that if one deprives their children of TV they are pretty much considered wackos and probable child abusers.
We have lost the battle.
 
Last edited:
Our family values and morals are pretty much controlled by the programming industry. aka Television.

In most yes... and thats a shame too.

Just look at VH1, MTV, TrueTV, and all these stupid reality shows.... OMG we are soooo fucked!
:omg:

The family values of Desperate Housewives? The Kardashians? Paris hilton?
Or even the old sitcoms where the family members are always decieving other family members and such.

And it has reached the point that if one deprives their children of TV they are pretty much considered wackos and probable child abusers.
We have lost the battle.

Didnt have a tv for most of the time when I was a kid... I thought I was being tortured - now I know I wasnt though :lol:
 
stutter.jpg

:lol:

What does that have to do with pretending homosexual marriage is the favored construct for raising children when we know it's not?
 
I would have missed so much amazing entertainment if I hadn't had a TV. M*A*S*H is the first show that comes to mind. I never would have seen Johnny Cash sing. I would have missed a lot. Yes, there is crap on TV, but it certainly doesn't represent the best the media has to offer any more than the trolls on this site represent the rest of us.
 
Omg, I've got to go to bed. I thought BDboop posted that, and i keep doing that...time to rest my eyes.
 
No shit, I agree. Which is why I object to the fact that our schools started teaching Kinsey's lies to children under the auspices of "sexual education" in the late 60s, and continues today..spreading garbage like "homosexual partnering is every bit as healthy in a family construct as heterosexual partnering" and "children are sexual from birth so we should just assume they're going to have sex". That was where our difficulties started. Followed by "if it feels good, do it" and "all sex is good sex" and "no fault divorce is healthy for families!"

And you are proposing we just keep marching along that path, continuing to teach those lies, and continuing to bomb away at the traditional family...

I, on the other had, think we should stop. Right. Here.

No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help you neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

Not at all. I don't think government should enforce morals. I don't object to homosexual marriage on a moral basis. I object to it on the basis that it isn't marriage when two homosexuals reject the favored construct for raising children, but insist we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros.

They reject the construct. They don't want to be a part of it. That's fine, they have the right to do that..but in rejecting that, it means we don't just close our eyes and say "ok ok, you're married anyway". When you reject something, you don't get to force people to pretend you are participating. If you were offered a cush job, and rejected it for a lower paying, harder job...should we be forced to pay you at the rate of the cush job and provide you with all the benefits?

Nope. You made your choice. If you change your mind, it's right there. But it's crap to pretend that they're being "forced" to live by anybody else's standards. They reject the standard...but they are attempting to force us to give them the benefits of the construct they don't want to participate in. It's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with morality, except that I guess it's a sign of a moral person to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.

Married gay people or two non-married gay people raising a child aren't insisting "we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros." They are just raising their kids the same way a divorced mother, a widowed father, a couple raising their nieces and nephews after a tragedy, grandparents rearing their grandchildren, OCTOMOM, and all sorts of other legally recognized family units do it.

Gay family units are not rejecting the construct, they are embracing it.
 
No, I'm not proposing that we just keep marching along that path. You want to get rid of government in education? Take your kids out of government schools and do whatever you can to help you neighbors do the same. Sooner or later the government won't have the power to control it anymore.

But you seem to advocate a different tact, one that puts the government in charge of enforcing morals. That is something I cannot abide. A government with enough power to enforce morals is a government powerful enough to define them for its own benefit.

Not at all. I don't think government should enforce morals. I don't object to homosexual marriage on a moral basis. I object to it on the basis that it isn't marriage when two homosexuals reject the favored construct for raising children, but insist we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros.

They reject the construct. They don't want to be a part of it. That's fine, they have the right to do that..but in rejecting that, it means we don't just close our eyes and say "ok ok, you're married anyway". When you reject something, you don't get to force people to pretend you are participating. If you were offered a cush job, and rejected it for a lower paying, harder job...should we be forced to pay you at the rate of the cush job and provide you with all the benefits?

Nope. You made your choice. If you change your mind, it's right there. But it's crap to pretend that they're being "forced" to live by anybody else's standards. They reject the standard...but they are attempting to force us to give them the benefits of the construct they don't want to participate in. It's ridiculous, and has nothing to do with morality, except that I guess it's a sign of a moral person to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.

Married gay people or two non-married gay people raising a child aren't insisting "we all pretend they are doing the exact same thing as married heteros." They are just raising their kids the same way a divorced mother, a widowed father, a couple raising their nieces and nephews after a tragedy, grandparents rearing their grandchildren, OCTOMOM, and all sorts of other legally recognized family units do it.

Gay family units are not rejecting the construct, they are embracing it.

Divorced mothers, widowed fathers aren't called "married". An aunt and her husband are. Octomom isn't married. Grandparents are.

So is Octomom being denied a right because we don't call her married? After all, she isn't.
 
Nobody denies them the right to have children and to raise them as they please.

In fact, nobody is denying them a right at all. They are choosing to reject marriage. And that is fine..but it's bs to force us to call them "married" when they chose not to marry. They aren't the same as a married couple, this is not the structure that is ideal that we as a society seek to protect and promote.
 

Forum List

Back
Top