Family As The Most Important Unit In Society

[volgadon]

A real family is one with a Mother and Father who at least have the potential of creating their own children with each other.

Same sex couples can't and never will be able to do that, which is why they must get their children from a real family, if they get any.

I certainly don't consider myself a supporter of SSA, but your definition of "real family" strikes me as arbitrary and silly. Using your reasoning, an infertile couple (a man and a woman) who adopts children are not a "real" family.

[Ahab]

I certainly don't consider myself a supporter of SSA, but your definition of "real family" strikes me as arbitrary and silly. Using your reasoning, an infertile couple (a man and a woman) who adopts children are not a "real" family.

No, because they at least have the possibility of producing children with each other. Infertility can be cured, even if they must wait until they receive their perfected resurrected bodies.

Men will never be given their own wombs that work, though, and women will never be able to produce children all by themselves, with no male.

Edit: and as far as adoption goes, that only works if the real parents give up their own children or somebody takes their children from them.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Ahab

[volgadon]

No, because they at least have the possibility of producing children with each other.

Not if they are infertile, or otherwise have a physical problem.

Infertility can be cured,

Not always.

even if they must wait until they receive their perfected resurrected bodies.

Post-resurrection pregnancy is highly speculative.

Men will never be given their own wombs that work, though, and women will never be able to produce children all by themselves, with no male.

So, if a husband and wife have no children, they aren't a "real" family?

Edit: and as far as adoption goes, that only works if the real parents give up their own children or somebody takes their children from them.

You mean the biological parents.

[Ahab]

Not if they are infertile, or otherwise have a physical problem.

Yes, they still have the potential to produce their own children.

If the "physical problem" is that the male isn't really a male or the female isn't really a female, though, yeah, that is a problem.

Not always.

Yes they will always have the potential to produce children because all it takes is a fully functioning male and female.

Post-resurrection pregnancy is highly speculative.

Sheesh. I thought I was talking to someone who knew better.

So, if a husband and wife have no children, they aren't a "real" family?

Read my lips: They are a real family because they have the potential to produce their own children with each other.

You mean the biological parents.

Yes, those are the real parents - the ones who the "adopting" parents get their children from when they "adopt".

Edited September 25, 2012 by Ahab

[altersteve]

Read my lips: They are a real family because they have the potential to produce their own children with each other.

But not because they love each other and take care of each other?

[Ahab]

But not because they love each other and take care of each other?

That's not what makes a family a family, although a family should do that, too.

People with pets can love and take care of each other. It takes something additional for people to be family.

[Calm]

According to Ahab's logic I, my parents and my siblings are a family.

When my parents die however, there will no longer be a male/female coupling present in the group and therefore my siblings and I will no longer be part of the same family.

Don't see it, sorry.

[altersteve]

That's not what makes a family a family

Are you kidding me? That's completely what makes a family a family.

[BlueDreams]

Ahab

Yes, those are the real parents - the ones who the "adopting" parents get their children from when they "adopt".

Yeah….no. Not even close. I’m assuming you came from an easy, clean family with no step-parents, mixed families, and the likes. My family is my family: 4 parents & 10 half-siblings. My “real” family entails those that I place in my parameter of my family, not how close my genetic ties to them are. With my 10 half-sibs all are equally genetically connected to me. But when I talk about my bro’s (or my monkeys) I’m usually talking about the 6 that I grew up with and help raised (I’m the oldest in the household with 2 working parents). My other sibs are still my sibs the 3 I feel a kinship to….it’s more than what I’d feel for a cousin but not the same as my core immediate family that raise me. My dads are equally my dads step or bio…though I’m more likely to go to my step for certain problems. My mom is my mom. My step is a nice woman who I enjoy (but is in not my mother, though she is family). 1 of my half-siblings is like a distant relative than anything else. I don’t know her and have only talked to her once in my entire life. So what decides what my family here is on earth? What Altersteve said: we love each other and take care of each other. Genetics was what linked us physically, but it had almost no other significance in deciding family ties. “Real” parents, to me, is a ridiculous notion.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

Ahab

Yeah….no. Not even close. I’m assuming you came from an easy, clean family with no step-parents, mixed families, and the likes. My family is my family: 4 parents & 10 half-siblings. My “real” family entails those that I place in my parameter of my family, not how close my genetic ties to them are. With my 10 half-sibs all are equally genetically connected to me. But when I talk about my bro’s (or my monkeys) I’m usually talking about the 6 that I grew up with and help raised (I’m the oldest in the household with 2 working parents). My other sibs are still my sibs the 3 I feel a kinship to….it’s more than what I’d feel for a cousin but not the same as my core immediate family that raise me. My dads are equally my dads step or bio…though I’m more likely to go to my step for certain problems. My mom is my mom. My step is a nice woman who I enjoy (but is in not my mother, though she is family). 1 of my half-siblings is like a distant relative than anything else. I don’t know her and have only talked to her once in my entire life. So what decides what my family here is on earth? What Altersteve said: we love each other and take care of each other. Genetics was what linked us physically, but it had almost no other significance in deciding family ties. “Real” parents, to me, is a ridiculous notion.

With luv,

BD

Love this!

[Ahab]

According to Ahab's logic I, my parents and my siblings are a family.

When my parents die however, there will no longer be a male/female coupling present in the group and therefore my siblings and I will no longer be part of the same family.

Don't see it, sorry.

What do you mean they will no longer be in the group? If you've been sealed to each other you are still a family, forever, even though some of your family is dead. And will they still have the potential to produce children together? Yes, each male and female couple still will, and you will still be connected with them.

What's so hard to see about this? Were you just having a mortal moment?

[KevinG]

Refresher anyone?

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

[Ahab]

Ahab

Yeah….no. Not even close. I’m assuming you came from an easy, clean family with no step-parents, mixed families, and the likes. My family is my family: 4 parents & 10 half-siblings. My “real” family entails those that I place in my parameter of my family, not how close my genetic ties to them are. With my 10 half-sibs all are equally genetically connected to me. But when I talk about my bro’s (or my monkeys) I’m usually talking about the 6 that I grew up with and help raised (I’m the oldest in the household with 2 working parents). My other sibs are still my sibs the 3 I feel a kinship to….it’s more than what I’d feel for a cousin but not the same as my core immediate family that raise me. My dads are equally my dads step or bio…though I’m more likely to go to my step for certain problems. My mom is my mom. My step is a nice woman who I enjoy (but is in not my mother, though she is family). 1 of my half-siblings is like a distant relative than anything else. I don’t know her and have only talked to her once in my entire life. So what decides what my family here is on earth? What Altersteve said: we love each other and take care of each other. Genetics was what linked us physically, but it had almost no other significance in deciding family ties. “Real” parents, to me, is a ridiculous notion.

With luv,

BD

I get what you mean. I love and try to take care of the people I grew up with as my "family", too, and I consider all of them to be part of my "family", somehow, in some sense, even though I'm not biologically related to all of them.

That's the difference I was pointing out between that kind of "family" and what you called a "clean" family with no step-parents. I actually have 4 step-Fathers, even including one who never had any children with my Mother. Notice I call him my "step-Father", though, and not my "real" Father, who is the one who actually gave birth to me along with my Mom.

You get all of this, I think. For some reason you just don't like to hint at the idea that there is a difference between the kind of family you and I have, and the kind of family a same sex couple has, and the kind of family people come from biologically and stay with together forever, even after death.

[Ahab]

Refresher anyone?

https://www.lds.org/...ly-proclamation

Thank you.

Seemed as if some people were kinda forgetting that there is a certain kind of family which is the best kind of family to have.

[altersteve]

What do you mean they will no longer be in the group? If you've been sealed to each other you are still a family, forever, even though some of your family is dead. And will they still have the potential to produce children together? Yes, each male and female couple still will, and you will still be connected with them.

What's so hard to see about this? Were you just having a mortal moment?

The problem is your claim that only "the potential to produce children together" is what makes a family a "real" family. I think that's ridiculously untrue. What makes a family a "real" family is the love each family member has for one another. It's love that brings and keeps families together, not "the potential to produce children."

[Ahab]

The problem is your claim that only "the potential to produce children together" is what makes a family a "real" family.

There is no problem with that statement. The problem seems to be that you have a hard time accepting that as the truth.

Friends and people with pets can love and take care of each other. Does that automatically make them a family, just becuase they are friends or have pets that love and take care of each other? A family should be friends to each other, too, and they can also have pets, but it isn't their friendliness that makes them a family. Family is related by blood, like in a Family Tree.

I think that's ridiculously untrue. What makes a family a "real" family is the love each family member has for one another. It's love that brings and keeps families together, not "the potential to produce children."

A "real" family should love and take care of each other at least as good as friends do, but even if they're not friendly and if they don't love each other they can still be a real family.

You and I are brothers from the same Father in heaven. Are you ever going to love me and take care of me as you believe a family should be? Even if you don't, and never will, you'll still be a part of our Father's family which includes everyone on this Earth.

[BlueDreams]

I get what you mean. I love and try to take care of the people I grew up with as my "family", too, and I consider all of them to be part of my "family", somehow, in some sense, even though I'm not biologically related to all of them.

That's the difference I was pointing out between that kind of "family" and what you called a "clean" family with no step-parents. I actually have 4 step-Fathers, even including one who never had any children with my Mother. Notice I call him my "step-Father", though, and not my "real" Father, who is the one who actually gave birth to me along with my Mom.

You get all of this, I think. For some reason you just don't like to hint at the idea that there is a difference between the kind of family you and I have, and the kind of family a same sex couple has, and the kind of family people come from biologically and stay with together forever, even after death.

No, I'm very aware. You can't help but be aware when you grow up in the church surronded by families that are at least superficially a little less crazy. I've notice a difference, spiritually, too. Not just with families that are married/single but also those that are married/sealed (and living their covenants...crap relationships are crap relationships no matter the title given them). I'm also aware of who I'll probably end up being sealed to (right now I'm a free-floater ....not sealed to anyone)....my mom's side of things. But I would never, ever call one of them my "real" dad, bro, sis, etc. When I label in order to distinguish them it's bio-dad, step-dad and step-mom and mom. Never real mom/real dad. Just because I can see a distinction, just because I would never want my current family set-up for my own family one day (ever), does not mean I would somehow label another's family as "real" or not. No, they're family. It is what it is on earth. I don't decide how much so by some measure of blood quantum or which ones I'm sealed to (by that measure I'm a temporal "orphan") or how well my family can make kids (very well, btw. I joke my family has plenty of problems, but fertility ain't one of them) or whether they'll all end up in the CK one day. They are what they are: family....my peoples. My personal geneological heritage.

Love isn't the only thing to define family, I'd agree.

Nor blood relationships (or the potential to make biological children), that's my main tiff with your idea of a "real family"

Caring and obligation are a good start....you know maybe heritage is a good word for it.

With luv,

BD

P.S there's more parental links in my family if I count my siblings biological/step parents. I counted once and I think it came to about 9 adults who made my sibs (one's value as a "parent" is more of a sperm donor) or helped raise them (their step-parents)...and many of my half-siblings have other half siblings. But I only count the ones I actually know and have a relationship with. For me it's not a family tree, it's a family bush. Law of Chastity is so true.

[Ahab]

Just because I can see a distinction, just because I would never want my current family set-up for my own family one day (ever), does not mean I would somehow label another's family as "real" or not. No, they're family. It is what it is on earth. I don't decide how much so by some measure of blood quantum...

I knew you saw the difference, and hence you knew what I was referring to. And while you may not choose the family you come from, it is determined by the ones you come from.... as your "biological" Mother and your "biological" Father bring you into this world as their offspring.

The point I was making before we got into all of this stuff is that "same sex" couples can't do that to create their own family. They can't have their own children, because they're both of the same sex, so any children they get are the children of another couple who are their "real" parents of those children... "real" in the sense that they are really truly their parents, biologically, which is what makes them the real parents... and regardless of whether or not they are "good" parents who love and take care of each other, or "evil" parents who don't do that.

Let's not quibble over words. I'm pretty sure you know and understand what I mean now.

Love isn't the only thing to define family, I'd agree.

Nor blood relationships (or the potential to make biological children), that's my main tiff with your idea of a "real family"

Caring and obligation are a good start....you know maybe heritage is a good word for it.

Maybe it would help if you tried imagining a time before all of this "same sex" stuff became so prevalent in our society, back when a man married a woman and together they made a family. That's what a "real" family is, in my view, and all of this stuff we're hearing today is somebody's idea of an "enlightened" society which for some reason some people think should facilitate in a change in the meaning of words... where a "family" can be anything involving people who love and care for each other, regardless of whether or not that family has a Mother and Father in it.... you know, a "real" Mother and a "real" Father.

Sheesh. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of date now. Back when I was younger this stuff was generally understood as the way a "family" was, regardless of whether or not they were good people.

[altersteve]

A "real" family should love and take care of each other at least as good as friends do, but even if they're not friendly and if they don't love each other they can still be a real family.

No, they can't.

But okay.

[BlueDreams]

I knew you saw the difference, and hence you knew what I was referring to. And while you may not choose the family you come from, it is determined by the ones you come from.... as your "biological" Mother and your "biological" Father bring you into this world as their offspring.

Of course I see the difference. Difference does not make one more real. It's like asking if there's a difference between a chihuahua and doberman. Of course there is. It's not the same as stating what's the "real" dog. (Forgive me for using another dog analogy). It's not between real or not real families, they are different constructs of the same thing: family. Period.

The point I was making before we got into all of this stuff is that "same sex" couples can't do that to create their own family. They can't have their own children, because they're both of the same sex, so any children they get are the children of another couple who are their "real" parents of those children... "real" in the sense that they are really truly their parents, biologically, which is what makes them the real parents... and regardless of whether or not they are "good" parents who love and take care of each other, or "evil" parents who don't do that.

And the point is that that definition of family is too confining for a definition of a family. Even if one has problems with same-sex couples considered as a family, it still is problematic because it excludes so many other familial constructs that don’t fit bio-mom-dad-children.

Let's not quibble over words. I'm pretty sure you know and understand what I mean now.

I know what you mean and it still irks me. I still have a problem when people ask me about my “real” dad/parents. Or ask a q about my dad, without specifying. I usually ask which one or clarify that I don’t consider either real. Most get it. Who’s real? The one I’m genetically linked to but never lived with or the one I grew up with for most of my childhood?...especially when I get along with both just fine.

Maybe it would help if you tried imagining a time before all of this "same sex" stuff became so prevalent in our society, back when a man married a woman and together they made a family.

Even back then there were differing constructs for family that may or may not include to married people of the opposite sex who could potentially have kids: single mothers/fathers, grandparents raising children, adoptive parents were still common enough. That’s within the American culture. There are other methods to raising children/grouping of people in order to raise children. They’re no less “real” families.

With luv,

BD

[Yirgacheffe]

I knew you saw the difference, and hence you knew what I was referring to. And while you may not choose the family you come from, it is determined by the ones you come from.... as your "biological" Mother and your "biological" Father bring you into this world as their offspring.

The point I was making before we got into all of this stuff is that "same sex" couples can't do that to create their own family. They can't have their own children, because they're both of the same sex, so any children they get are the children of another couple who are their "real" parents of those children... "real" in the sense that they are really truly their parents, biologically, which is what makes them the real parents... and regardless of whether or not they are "good" parents who love and take care of each other, or "evil" parents who don't do that.

Let's not quibble over words. I'm pretty sure you know and understand what I mean now.

Maybe it would help if you tried imagining a time before all of this "same sex" stuff became so prevalent in our society, back when a man married a woman and together they made a family. That's what a "real" family is, in my view, and all of this stuff we're hearing today is somebody's idea of an "enlightened" society which for some reason some people think should facilitate in a change in the meaning of words... where a "family" can be anything involving people who love and care for each other, regardless of whether or not that family has a Mother and Father in it.... you know, a "real" Mother and a "real" Father.

Sheesh. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of date now. Back when I was younger this stuff was generally understood as the way a "family" was, regardless of whether or not they were good people.

I'll let my friend know that because she and her husband couldn't have their own biological children, they and their adopted children are not a real family, my sister in law and her brother (both adopted) also might find this interesting. I may direct them here, I'm sure they'll be impressed with this understanding of family.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Yirgacheffe

[rodheadlee]

Wow, 5 pages of squabbling over what constitutes a family. I'll bet Heavenly Father is impressed.

Getting back to the OP. The family unit is important in society or should be. In my travels the one thing that struck me the most is there are no homless in Polynesia or very few. They may be poor but the family lives together without shame. I watched 3 generations of women, girls, babies, fish from the same boat for their lunch. They all live on the same property with the grandparents helping to raise the little children while the parents go make money or farm the land or fish to support the family. There is no shame in newlyweds living with the grooms parents, it's a way of life. The elders pass on their knowledge to the children, the children grow up and take care of their elders when they are no longer able to care for themselves.

The saddest parents I've met are the ones that tell me they never hear from their children, they have moved off to America to seek fame and fortune. Some return and bring their knowledge with them and apply it to their island lifestyle trying to make a better life for the entire family. Many never return and it breaks the chain. Who will take care of the elders if all the children move out to far away places? Strangers will watch over the children in their new lands, while the parents both work to put 2 cars in the driveway of their suburban home.

This is not just true in Polynesia, in Mexico I met a man that had worked his way up from selling T shirts on the beach to having his own shop on the main boulevarde. His kids all moved off to California and want nothing to do with his business and never call him.

In California I met a guy who bought 20 acres and is raising sheep on it, his kids want nothing to do with farming and turned down an offer to share the land and work it.

I'm guilty of the same thing. My Dad offered me 5 acres to build a house on. I turned him down, bought a sailboat and sailed off. We did park it for 2 years though and nursed my wifes parents in to the grave. I suspect we'll do the same thing for my parents as none of the other kids can be bothered. And then who will do it for us? We have no children. The chain is broken.

Edited September 27, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Calm]

What do you mean they will no longer be in the group? If you've been sealed to each other you are still a family, forever, even though some of your family is dead. And will they still have the potential to produce children together? Yes, each male and female couple still will, and you will still be connected with them.

What's so hard to see about this? Were you just having a mortal moment?

And if they are not sealed? Is the family no longer intact?