Reviving Family Life

[TheProgressivePatriot]

George and Lee in 2014 wrote Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters:

Here they describe the theme of their arguments:

In this book, we examine these issues from the standpoint of reason unaided by faith; that is, we do not presuppose here any revealed source of truth – we do not presuppose the truth of any sacred writings or the teachings of any authoritative religious body. The arguments we propose are ones that can be accepted by anyone, without regard to religious conviction and commitment. Thus, we will set out philosophical arguments (sometimes called “natural law” arguments) to defend traditional morality on the questions of what marriage is; whether it should be exclusive, permanent, between a man and a woman, and restricted to two persons, not three or more; whether sexual acts outside marriage are morally right; and whether marriage should be defined by the political community as an exclusive union of husband and wife.

Oh! Waite...what!?? Now you are pasting the writings of someone who appears to be open to various definitions of marriage. Do you even realize how this contradicts the other crap that you posted? Do you think must about what you post? Do you think at all?

 

[AMart]

Prog pat posting in this thread is a raving lunatic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Prog pat posting in this thread is a raving lunatic.

Another thoughtful and brilliant analysis on the issues facing themodern family. You must have advanced degrees from top universities in sociplogy, history and psychology .Please keep sharing your profound windom

 

[Skull]

From Them Before Us:

“Most of us pro-lifers understand that mothers and fathers offer distinct, complementary benefits when it comes to child-rearing. But I’ve discovered a surprising blind spot among my pro-life compatriots with regard to reproductive technologies. We’ve been so busy fighting the baby-taking industry that we’ve neglected to fight for children produced by the baby-making industry. Here’s the deal, brothers and sisters: Abortion and donor conception are two sides of the same child-commodifying coin.

•Both abortion and reproductive technologies are adult-centric. Those who favor “abortion on demand without apology” measure success by whether the adults are happy at the end of the procedure, not by whether the child’s body remains intact. Those who pursue donor conception measure success by whether the adults are happy at the end of the procedure, not by whether the child’s relationship to his or her biological parents remains intact.
•Both abortion and reproductive technologies determine a child’s rights based on whether the child is wanted. Abortion advocates say, “If children are unwanted, you can force them out of existence even if it violates their right to life.” Advocates of third-party reproduction say, “If children are very wanted, you can force them into existence even if it violates their right to their mother and father.”

Excerpt From: Katy Faust, Stacy Manning & Robert George. Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

More mindless cut and past bullshit that in no way defends or supports your crap about reviving family life. Marriage is all about childen? Give me a ******* break! If you want to restore and preservethe family, we must be flexible about what a family is and what the purpose of marriage is inorder to be more inclusive

No matter how much you want it to be so, no matter how much you shreik and curse and hurl insults at those who see and say it as it is; a “conjugal relationship” between a senile old man and a pre-adolescent boy will never be comparable to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman. To demand that the former be an equally-valid basis for a family as the latter is pure madness.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Redefining family and marriage seriously undercuts stability in society.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Redefining family and marriage seriously undercuts stability in society.

That is very likely a significant intent and motive behind many who are trying to do that. The family structure has been the foundation of every stable human society that has ever existed, or ever will exist, on any significant scale. If you want to destabilize a society, that's where to attack it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More mindless cut and past bullshit that in no way defends or supports your crap about reviving family life. Marriage is all about childen? Give me a ******* break! If you want to restore and preservethe family, we must be flexible about what a family is and what the purpose of marriage is inorder to be more inclusive

No matter how much you want it to be so, no matter how much you shreik and curse and hurl insults at those who see and say it as it is; a “conjugal relationship” between a senile old man and a pre-adolescent boy will never be comparable to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman. To demand that the former be an equally-valid basis for a family as the latter is pure madness.

No one is saying any such thing you crazy jackass!! You should really do something about your mental illness Bobby Boy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Redefining family and marriage seriously undercuts stability in society.

Please describe in detail how society has been destableized as the result of changing the definition of marriage from a being between a man and a woman, to b eing between any two consenting adults

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Redefining family and marriage seriously undercuts stability in society.

Please describe in detail how society has been destableized as the result of changing the definition of marriage from a being between a man and a woman, to b eing between any two consenting adults

What's so god damned funny Skull | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What's so god damned funny Skull | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's funny—in a sad and disturbing way—is how you're so deeply fucked-up in your head, and in your soul, that you have no idea how you come across to normal, sane, decent people. You're so deeply invested in madness and evil, that that is what seems “normal” to you, however abnormal you clearly appear to everyone else.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What's so god damned funny Skull | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What's funny—in a sad and disturbing way—is how you're so deeply fucked-up in your head, and in your soul, that you have no idea how you come across to normal, sane, decent people. You're so deeply invested in madness and evil, that that is what seems “normal” to you, however abnormal you clearly appear to everyone else.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Advocates of third-party reproduction say, “If children are very wanted, you can force them into existence even if it violates their right to their mother and father.”

How does a being that does not yet exist have rights?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

From Them Before Us:

“Most of us pro-lifers understand that mothers and fathers offer distinct, complementary benefits when it comes to child-rearing. But I’ve discovered a surprising blind spot among my pro-life compatriots with regard to reproductive technologies. We’ve been so busy fighting the baby-taking industry that we’ve neglected to fight for children produced by the baby-making industry. Here’s the deal, brothers and sisters: Abortion and donor conception are two sides of the same child-commodifying coin.

•Both abortion and reproductive technologies are adult-centric. Those who favor “abortion on demand without apology” measure success by whether the adults are happy at the end of the procedure, not by whether the child’s body remains intact. Those who pursue donor conception measure success by whether the adults are happy at the end of the procedure, not by whether the child’s relationship to his or her biological parents remains intact.
•Both abortion and reproductive technologies determine a child’s rights based on whether the child is wanted. Abortion advocates say, “If children are unwanted, you can force them out of existence even if it violates their right to life.” Advocates of third-party reproduction say, “If children are very wanted, you can force them into existence even if it violates their right to their mother and father.”

Excerpt From: Katy Faust, Stacy Manning & Robert George. Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement.

Family planning in all forms strengthens families .Isn't that what your original cut and past rant was all about?

 

[Skull]

From chapter four of Them Before Us by Katy Faust:

“Contemporary adults are arranging their relationships in myriad ways, and depending on their state of residence, some of the mélanges are considered legal marriages; however, to children’s rights activists, “marriage” refers to the only relationship that unites the two people to whom children have a natural right—heterosexual and traditional, one man married to one woman.

Marriage has the unique ability to secure children’s right to their mother and father by codifying the only relationship with the capacity to create, sustain, and nurture a child. The marital contract is intended to eschew all other romantic interests for good reason: Marital fidelity is essential to raising well-adjusted children.

If you’re hearing the words “modern family,” it’s a safe bet the rights of children have been compromised. All modern families—whether with cohabiting, non-monogamous, same-sex, or polygamous adults—prioritize adult desire over children’s rights.”

 

[Meriweather]

If you’re hearing the words “modern family,” it’s a safe bet the rights of children have been compromised. All modern families—whether with cohabiting, non-monogamous, same-sex, or polygamous adults—prioritize adult desire over children’s rights.”

I am in favor of doing away with our use of "rights". In your paragraph I would replace that word with "welfare" that the welfare of our children and descendants are being compromised both by this generation's sexual desires and a disinclination to shoulder responsibility. (By 'generation' I include everyone 18 and older.)

 

[Skull]

If you’re hearing the words “modern family,” it’s a safe bet the rights of children have been compromised. All modern families—whether with cohabiting, non-monogamous, same-sex, or polygamous adults—prioritize adult desire over children’s rights.”

I am in favor of doing away with our use of "rights". In your paragraph I would replace that word with "welfare" that the welfare of our children and descendants are being compromised both by this generation's sexual desires and a disinclination to shoulder responsibility. (By 'generation' I include everyone 18 and older.)

Not my words but quoted from the book. Earlier on Faust gave reasons why the natural rights of children is the correct term. Will try to find it later.

 

[Skull]

This is from the Them Before Us website, explaining what childrens' rights means; it is quoted from the book:

Children Have Rights