So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[why me]

The old nuclear family formula is not so old and is failure prone for a host of reasons, and holding it up as the ideal is idolatry. Only the authentically old extended family has any hope of survival.

I believe that this was called the extended nucleur family which always included the grandma, grandpa etc. This has been broken because people are mobile and in a hurry at work and in the family. Many people are in survival mode. Even in places where the elderly do have family present they may rarely see them. Western society has become a dysfunctional beehive.

[why me]

CFR.

So called "gay marriage" is quite rare, and would be a minuscule fraction of 1% of the total marriages in America. Only about 4% of the overall population is even homosexual (2% female and 2% male)

Read post 169. I was referring to California Boy's post about the 1%,

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems that the forces of evil are attacking the western family. The liberalization of the media is one example. And I am not referring to a liberal, conservative paradigm but to the relaxation of what can be shown on the television and what can now be seen on the internet etc. Also, the socioeconomic system in the West is also too blame by bringing into the structure the economic values of productivity, efficiency and insecurity compouded by an ideology of competitiveness And a false understanding of happiness and what it is. Happiness has become a commodity to be sought after...a sort of mass media induced definition of what happiness is--- of having everthing that one can possibly accumulate.

Well, why me, there are problems aplenty, but the profit motive, market competition, and efficiency in productivity are at the heart of conservative economic theory (even the Chinese Communists are on board), and the mass media are owned by conservative conglomerates -- with stockholders insisting on big dividends. The commodification of happiness (via Disneyland or other mechanism) is a conservative accomplishment, and advertising is used to hoodwink the public into thinking that it is all good.

So, shop till you drop, Brother. That's where happiness lies . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Read post 169. I was referring to California Boy's post about the 1%,

Yes, I did read it, and that was why I responded to your claim that it was higher than 1%, which is certainly false.

If you have a statistic that 1% or more of marriages in America are gay marriages, I'd like to see it.

[why me]

Well, why me, there are problems aplenty, but the profit motive, market competition, and efficiency in productivity are at the heart of conservative economic theory (even the Chinese Communists are on board), and the mass media are owned by conservative conglomerates -- with stockholders insisting on big dividends. The commodification of happiness (via Disneyland or other mechanism) is a conservative accomplishment, and advertising is used to hoodwink the public into thinking that it is all good.

So, shop till you drop, Brother. That's where happiness lies . . .

i have always taken the position that under our current economic structure happiness is a commodity and now that we have a consumer society and not a producer society, happiness has become an important commodity to be bought and sold, However it would be a mistake to equate it with just conservative politics. It crosses borders since liberals also support the commodity society. Both conservatives and liberals have their feet in capitalism. And this goes into the idea of gay marriage. Do not gays have the right to be 'happy' and be married? Do not they also have the right to enjoy the happiness of a married family? Etc. But when does this idea of personal 'happiness' lead us into chaos and anarchy as all values are fine as long as no one is being hurt emotionally and physically.

[why me]

Yes, I did read it, and that was why I responded to your claim that it was higher than 1%, which is certainly false.

If you have a statistic that 1% or more of marriages in America are gay marriages, I'd like to see it.

I had the idea that california boy was referring to man, man, children as being less than one percent. However, even if it were one percent, the problem is much bigger. The fall of the nucleur family is the reason and this has many factors to it including the amount of people living together without a marriage certificate, one parent homes living in poverty, deadbeat dads, the non-involvement of the grandfolks or the over involvement of the old folks as kids are pawned off on them. Not to mention the idea that women should be working, and earning a living. Not many who wish to stay at home and be a homemaker can do so. And now in the UK, the government is set to punish women who are staying at home by cancelling their child benefit.

[Stone holm]

I had the idea that california boy was referring to man, man, children as being less than one percent. However, even if it were one percent, the problem is much bigger. The fall of the nucleur family is the reason and this has many factors to it including the amount of people living together without a marriage certificate, one parent homes living in poverty, deadbeat dads, the non-involvement of the grandfolks or the over involvement of the old folks as kids are pawned off on them. Not to mention the idea that women should be working, and earning a living. Not many who wish to stay at home and be a homemaker can do so. And now in the UK, the government is set to punish women who are staying at home by cancelling their child benefit.

Or that gays have been able to form actual communities for self defence in wake of the AIDs plague whereas the heterosexual communities are falling apart in the wake of economic change.

[USU78]

Or that gays have been able to form actual communities for self defence in wake of the AIDs plague whereas the heterosexual communities are falling apart in the wake of economic change.

That would make a terrific recruiting poster.

[Stone holm]

That would make a terrific recruiting poster.

Yes it would. It's similar to the community cohesiveness that pulls people to Mormonism, except it seems to be waning with us because so many have opted into some atomising beliefs.

[USU78]

Yes it would. It's similar to the community cohesiveness that pulls people to Mormonism, except it seems to be waning with us because so many have opted into some atomising beliefs.

The endemic narcissism amongst homosexuals makes atomization and, indeed, balkanization inevitable.

[thesometimesaint]

The nuclear family as we know it is a relic of the 1950's. For most of human history the family was the extended family of grandparents, parents, their children, aunts, uncles, cousins, and near relatives.

Edited August 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[WmLaw]

CFR.

So called "gay marriage" is quite rare, and would be a minuscule fraction of 1% of the total marriages in America. Only about 4% of the overall population is even homosexual (2% female and 2% male)

One might want to look at the continuing high value placed on families in many non-Western cultures. But, of course, most of them are extended and not nuclear families. Many of them live in compounds with aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and greatgrandparents. We need to get back to basics. Scapegoating the homosexual community gets us nowhere.

Why Me wasn't saying that the actual statistic was greater than 1%. He was saying there were 'more' reasons beyond that.

[california boy]

Why Me wasn't saying that the actual statistic was greater than 1%. He was saying there were 'more' reasons beyond that.

That was exactly my point as well. Gay marriage is so small of reason it hardly shows up on the radar as something that should be addressed when it comes to the breakdown of the family. Even then, you have to explain why gay's marrying causes any harm to any family. I would think that encouraging everyone to marry contributes to increasing the stability of all family structures. When you tell gay couples that it is not necessary, or important for them to marry, then just what message are you telling other young people about the importance of marriage. I have actually had young people tell me that they have no plans to marry the person they love because they hear messages that marriage is not that important for every couple unless you are religious since marriage is a religious ceremony. The sooner this issue goes away, the sooner a more positive message of the importance of marriage for everyone will help stem the tide against the family.

Yet for some people it becomes the focus of their efforts to shore up the family. If your reason for being active in opposing gay marriage is because you feel like you want to stem the tide of the breakdown of the family, then you really have to ask yourself if the effort you are putting into this is really directed in a productive way.

Some people seem to need to be against anything that is gay. If that is your attitude, then fighting gay marriage probably does make you feel better. If on the other hand you are fighting against the immorality of gay actions, then you have to ask yourself, just how does fighting against gay marriage make gays more moral? It would be hard for anyone to make the case that gay sex within the bounds of marriage is more immoral than gay sex outside of marriage.

These are hard things to think about. If you are one of these people, you might want to spend some time thinking through why you are actually concerned at all about gay marriage. I would certainly hope that prejudice against gays is not the driving force behind fighting gay marriage.

Now, does anyone on this board still really feel that gay marriage is responsible for the breakdown of the family?

[why me]

Now, does anyone on this board still really feel that gay marriage is responsible for the breakdown of the family?

Gay marriage is apart of the problem but not the entire problem. Over the years there has been a chipping away at the traditional family. I suppose that we can trace this back to the late 60's with aspects of 'living together'. But through the 90's and twenty first century the traditional family is morphing out of existence in the western world. And this can't be good in the long run. The traditional family provided stablity and cohesivenss to society. Now, it is an anything goes mentality. Of which gay marriage is a part of. Like I said earlier people now find it hard to define family. And that can't be a good thing. Or they define according to personal understanding. Family no longer has a collective definition.

[Stone holm]

Gay marriage is apart of the problem but not the entire problem. Over the years there has been a chipping away at the traditional family. I suppose that we can trace this back to the late 60's with aspects of 'living together'. But through the 90's and twenty first century the traditional family is morphing out of existence in the western world. And this can't be good in the long run. The traditional family provided stablity and cohesivenss to society. Now, it is an anything goes mentality. Of which gay marriage is a part of. Like I said earlier people now find it hard to define family. And that can't be a good thing. Or they define according to personal understanding. Family no longer has a collective definition.

I think for the most part you are confusing symptoms with causes. What happened in the 60's was a reaction to the hypocrisy of the prior generation and its rigidity of ideology which was literally killing the rising generation.

[Five Solas]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

This may be uncharitable, but afraid I’m compelled to point it out anyway—

We lost the Pope, but we picked up Putin!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23603870

Back in the 80’s, we’d speculate what it would mean for the LDS Church (in terms of new converts) if Communism fell. And when it did it was, as they say, a damp squid (how many LDS stakes are there now in Russia?). But maybe now, if leadership in Salt Lake can seize the moment…

;0)

--Erik

Edited August 10, 2013 by Five Solas

[Robert F. Smith]

I had the idea that california boy was referring to man, man, children as being less than one percent. However, even if it were one percent, the problem is much bigger. The fall of the nucleur family is the reason and this has many factors to it including the amount of people living together without a marriage certificate, one parent homes living in poverty, deadbeat dads, the non-involvement of the grandfolks or the over involvement of the old folks as kids are pawned off on them. Not to mention the idea that women should be working, and earning a living. Not many who wish to stay at home and be a homemaker can do so. And now in the UK, the government is set to punish women who are staying at home by cancelling their child benefit.

I concur. Some countries now pay a bounty to women who have children, the fertility rate being below replacement level.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think for the most part you are confusing symptoms with causes. What happened in the 60's was a reaction to the hypocrisy of the prior generation and its rigidity of ideology which was literally killing the rising generation.

Each new generation responds with rebellion to the previous generation, regardless of what it supposedly stood for. You need a greater sense of irony and cynicism.

[Robert F. Smith]

The nuclear family as we know it is a relic of the 1950's. For most of human history the family was the extended family of grandparents, parents, their children, aunts, uncles, cousins, and near relatives.

Yes.

[Stone holm]

Each new generation responds with rebellion to the previous generation, regardless of what it supposedly stood for. You need a greater sense of irony and cynicism.

My wife feels I am quite cynical enough thank you. But they did hold on to our music.

[california boy]

Gay marriage is apart of the problem but not the entire problem. Over the years there has been a chipping away at the traditional family. I suppose that we can trace this back to the late 60's with aspects of 'living together'. But through the 90's and twenty first century the traditional family is morphing out of existence in the western world. And this can't be good in the long run. The traditional family provided stablity and cohesivenss to society. Now, it is an anything goes mentality. Of which gay marriage is a part of. Like I said earlier people now find it hard to define family. And that can't be a good thing. Or they define according to personal understanding. Family no longer has a collective definition.

I am still going to quibble with you on your assertion that gay marriage is a part of the problem. Tell me the logic in what you are asserting. Are you trying to suggest that straight couples are choosing not to marry now that gay couples can marry? Are you suggesting that now gay couples can marry then there is no reason why straight couples should marry? I can see how your logic would work if gay couples were campaigning against marriage. But in fact the complete opposite is true. If anything the campaign against marriage is coming from those that oppose gay marriage.

Please explain three things.

1. What is happening to straight couples as a result of gays marrying.

2. How does gay couples that want to marry send a message to anyone that marriage is less important?

3. Do you think that those who oppose gay couples from marrying are in fact encouraging couples to live together rather than marry? If you don't think that, please explain why it is not sending a message that marriage is not for everyone.

[Stone holm]

I am still going to quibble with you on your assertion that gay marriage is a part of the problem. Tell me the logic in what you are asserting. Are you trying to suggest that straight couples are choosing not to marry now that gay couples can marry? Are you suggesting that now gay couples can marry then there is no reason why straight couples should marry? I can see how your logic would work if gay couples were campaigning against marriage. But in fact the complete opposite is true. If anything the campaign against marriage is coming from those that oppose gay marriage.

Please explain three things.

1. What is happening to straight couples as a result of gays marrying.

2. How does gay couples that want to marry send a message to anyone that marriage is less important?

3. Do you think that those who oppose gay couples from marrying are in fact encouraging couples to live together rather than marry? If you don't think that, please explain why it is not sending a message that marriage is not for everyone.

California Boy you are challenging one of the centrail thematic mysteries of social conservative thought here, that non-conformist minorities are a threat to society. Mysteries are beyond our capacity to comprehend, they must simply be accepted on faith.

[Tacenda]

name='california boy' timestamp='1376171878' post='1209288295']

I am still going to quibble with you on your assertion that gay marriage is a part of the problem. Tell me the logic in what you are asserting. Are you trying to suggest that straight couples are choosing not to marry now that gay couples can marry? Are you suggesting that now gay couples can marry then there is no reason why straight couples should marry? I can see how your logic would work if gay couples were campaigning against marriage. But in fact the complete opposite is true. If anything the campaign against marriage is coming from those that oppose gay marriage.

Please explain three things.

1. What is happening to straight couples as a result of gays marrying.

2. How does gay couples that want to marry send a message to anyone that marriage is less important?

3. Do you think that those who oppose gay couples from marrying are in fact encouraging couples to live together rather than marry? If you don't think that, please explain why it is not sending a message that marriage is not for everyone.

California Boy you are challenging one of the centrail thematic mysteries of social conservative thought here, that non-conformist minorities are a threat to society. Mysteries are beyond our capacity to comprehend, they must simply be accepted on faith.

I believe that marriage is a unity of devotion to hopefully last till the end of times. And when going into that commitment it can only please God. In fact SSM may be a way to make it right with God. The unity. Because it makes it sacred and holy, just by being monogamous. This is why gays wanting to marry shouldn't be looked at with disdain, or that they are ruining the sanctity of marriage, they are only giving it honor.

[Calm]

I believe that marriage is a unity of devotion to hopefully last till the end of times. And when going into that commitment it can only please God. In fact SSM may be a way to make it right with God. The unity. Because it makes it sacred and holy, just by being monogamous. This is why gays wanting to marry shouldn't be looked at with disdain, or that they are ruining the sanctity of marriage, they are only giving it honor.

I am not suggesting they should be looked at with disdain, etc, but given the low stats on sexuality fidelity in homosexual marriage and civil unions, do you still see that (those marriages which are open) as a sufficient unity and commitment that is pleasing to God and making what they have holy and sacred?

[Tacenda]

I am not suggesting they should be looked at with disdain, etc, but given the low stats on sexuality fidelity in homosexual marriage and civil unions, do you still see that (those marriages which are open) as a sufficient unity and commitment that is pleasing to God and making what they have holy and sacred?

Do you mind giving me a link to the statistics and the comparison to heterosexual marriages infidelity?