Art sites studies that puport that children thrive better when the parents are married.
He implies that the fact that the parents are married leads to the production of ‘good’ children.
But I would conclude that the children are ‘good’ because the parents were ‘good’. The fact that the parents were ‘good’ led them to get married.
Notice the slight difference. I contend that the couple would have produced ‘good’ offspring regardless of whether they were married. It just so happens that ‘good’ people usually marry when they decide to cohabitate.
Art implies that it was the fact that they were married that makes the children good, as if there is an intrinsic value of marriage that is passed on to the runts.
Now, maybe he was just kidding because he was recently outed as a neo-con, which is like a liberal but hates taxes.
It has been well documented that children’s views of relationships and marriage are formed at a very early age by examples set forth in their own parent’s actions.
No one has said that the kids will be good or bad because their parents weren’t married before having them. But common sense and modern psychology substantiates the premise that a couple who have committed themselves to marriage prior to having children leads to a more stable foundation to raise the children. By no means does that mean the child isn’t loved or the parents don’t love each other. However, there is certainly facts that substantiate that couples who commit themselves to marriage are more likely to stay together and provide a better foundation for their offspring than committed couples who have children out of wedlock.
“The fact that the parents were ‘good’ led them to get married.”
So are you implying that “good” people get married because that’s is what society deems is “good” and “good” people do “good” things? Or are you implying that marriage IS “good” therefore “good” people get married.
“as if there is an intrinsic value of marriage that is passed on to the runts.”
This combined with the above I would say that there is a little of both. I think marriage has some good intrinsic values. I woudl also agree that “good” people are attracted to marriage because that is deemed what is “good” by society.
However one could also go back one step and say. "Through many years of “testing” society has reached the conclusion that marriage has “intrinsicly’ good values and thus marriage is good”. This would intern mean tht marriage is good and has intrinsicly good values.
I was thinking that all of the other groups make up a whole lot more our population than happily cohabitating gays couples who just want to get married but are evil according to some people who aren’t comfortable with their life after death so they have cooked up “religion”, but the other groups I mentioned have no problem getting married/have children and do a nice job messing up the their offspring, but good cristian messed up offspring.
But, no, basically, you’re right, of course. If it’s possible to screw up a traditional marriage in any way, or for that matter for Christians to screw up in any way, the only logical conclusion we should draw is that every deviancy is valid.
“the only logical conclusion we should draw is that every deviancy is valid”
Nahh, just pointing out that loving someone who happens to be of the same sex seems to be worse in the minds of our cristian brothers and sisters than Alcoholics, Drug addicts, Felons, and Physical Abusers, you know, as long as they are straight.
Weird set of standards, I’ll pick loving and caring over abusive and dependant as desirable.
**just pointing out that loving someone who happens to be of the same sex seems to be worse in the minds of our cristian brothers and sisters than Alcoholics, Drug addicts, Felons, and Physical Abusers, you know, as long as they are straight. **
I’m going to put this charitably: You’re being stupid.
bvfrompc - “Nahh, just pointing out that loving someone who happens to be of the same sex seems to be worse in the minds of our cristian brothers and sisters than Alcoholics, Drug addicts, Felons, and Physical Abusers, you know, as long as they are straight.”
Casey - “If Christians are not showing love to anyone, including those of the same sex as you aptly put it, then they are not acting according to the teachings of Jesus.”
Showing love is not the same thing as condoning behaviour or giving it legal legitimacy. A Chrsitian could love a homosexual, but not accept his behaviour or lifestyle as good.
Good god it takes a lot of baiting here to raise some short hairs.
Its just my take, labeling deviant and denying rights becuase people believe and behave differently was never my take on the bible either. Thats why it always boggles my mind that its the loudest proclaiming religious who judge so much.
Honestly my point from the beginning, happily married non-addicted non-abusing non-felon gay couples would do a much a better job raising children then a good percentage of the accepted parents we have out in the sewer of America. Except for a label of deviant, I don’t think anyone has denied that premise. So if they can do a better job than all of these crack mommas and drunk daddies and divorced couples, why do the majority of folks here oppose them getting married and having children?
A pack of wolves might do better at raising kids than some people out there. That doesn’t mean you allow govt sanction of that action. Maybe a pair of loving gays could raise kids better, or maybe not. This is like arguing “Jimmy got to stay up until 10pm, why can’t I?” or “N.Korea has WMD and they didn’t get invaded, so why did Iraq?” The logic doesn’t always follow.
You aren’t seriously going to engage in a discussion about this, are you commodore? The premise, imo, doesn’t deserve or require refutation. Save your fingers the work.