Liberals: Do you really hate the traditional family? - Page 6 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
Rei this is a puzzling argument. Are the "Christians" liberal or conservative? The PO asked whether Liberals "hate the traditional family". The answer is obviously no. Neither do conservatives. We can try to attack the definition of "traditional" (and by the way the arguments we have seen so far have been pretty threadbare" but this is one of those cases of 'we know what we are all talking about'.

There are no lies on the part of Christian leaders and there is no hatred of the nuclear family on the part of "liberals". Look at the issues of gay marriage and lesbian adoption for example. These traditionally labeled "liberal" groups do not hate adoption or marriage. They aspire to them.

Decky posted this:
I just think they assume the current family has exist since the world was created 6000 years ago and that auguring against this would make the baby Jesus cry.

I am offended by that and I have every right to be. This is yet another example of the typically baseless drivel I hear from atheists with whom I have the misfortune to interact. The are, for the most part, people who are boorish and rude. They think it is just fine to insult large groups of people because they have religious beliefs. These same people, who would recoil in horror at any sentence that begins, "all black people" or "all faminists" are prefectly happy to print or even say to my face something like Decky just posted and you just endorsed.

So in the future I will assume that you and Decky think I am "that stupid" and that I believe the world was made 6000 years ago. You will, of course be mistaken. Sometime during my 9 years of college I think I had a class that got me up to speed. I guess I am one of the lucky Christians. That or perhaps you are both wrong and ought to admit it.

I admire your arguments even when we disagree but you have this thing about religious people that does not serve you well. Maybe you ought to think about that.
Well, you've made a good point, Dr. Lee, so I'll acknowledge that I painted with too broad a brush there. There are indeed a sizeable number of Christians who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and of the human being and so on.

So 'they are all stupid' is not really the case in a strict sense. There are a lot of properly-informed Christians who are not likely to get snookered by all the proclamations that the Church leadership makes. And that is a somewhat positive thing.
They have plenty of stupid followers, but their leaders are not that stupid. Seriously investigate them, their intellectuals are actually fully aware of what you are aware of, Decky.

Especially the Catholic ones. They actually understand what is going on, and they just deliberately lie to the plebs.

I suppose that makes sense but I just can't see Protestants being aware of what the world is really like. Maybe that is my own bias. ;) After all here is one of their intellectuals


I will have to do some research.

I am offended by that and I have every right to be.

Settle down and read back.

Right wing people do that. Go ahead and present them with evidence that the nuclear family is a product of the industrial revolution, I guarantee you they will totally ignore it.

I made the relevant phrase bold to help you out. I was talking about the American right not God bothers in General.
Are you tring to dig your hole deeper. I dislike all bigots. Especially religious ones. Bigotry is wonderful evidence of stupidity.
Well, as a liberal conservative, I'd have to say that I don't "hate" the traditional family. If anything, I endorse it. Have both a mother and a father to support a child (or a few!) is actually very beneficial, as both genders give equal support to the child but in different ways.

If it's a related topic, I don't think that two men would be capable of raising a child properly. The same goes with two women. As I said, I feel that both genders equally provide support for the children, but in different ways. Of course, though, the liberal side of be would endorse allowing homosexual couples to adopt children, as, at the end of the day, it still provides the child with a proper shelter, proper food, proper education, and a form - albeit different - of parents. The good here outweighs the bad.

Sam Hall
Whats so great about the traditional family. America is in decline and we still are made of traditional families. Who knows maybe group major will be good for the economy.
Whathastobedone wrote:The vast majority of conservative thinkers and intellectuals have said yes, and have provided strong arguments to support their assessments.

I just want to hear a liberal perspective, do you think the world would be better off if families in the traditional sense didn’t exist? If so, why? If not, why?

Also, when I say "liberal" I mean anyone who does not fit into the American definition of conservative: Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-abortion and often says "It's time we put God back in *insert country here*." If these do not reflect your views than you are more than qualified to answer my question.

I consider myself a liberal but I can't understand why anyone would assume liberals HATE the traditional family, some might, probably the ones you're referring to do but I certainly don't, I imagine most liberals don't and don't consider it a typical liberal view.
For me and my family, family is very important. It gave me structure in that I was born into a family of 10. If my parents had not had structure, rules and applied both with love, no telling what would have come of us. My husband and I had 3 sons and now have 3 Grand-daughters, so family is where we start with our actions and feelings about our fellow human beings. For Conservatives to paint all Liberals with such a broad brush is ridiculous. Just because we are Liberals in politics, does not mean we don't care about others and work to help the world we live in. Many Conservatives I know are some of the meanest, most ruthless, non-caring persons I have come across. I avoid being in the same room with many of them, let alone subscribe to their beliefs. The hilarious thing is so many of them claim to be such devout Christians and hate their fellow man. How can that be?
Is it surprising that a thread packed with conservative bashing died on the vine? Is it not strange to you that we have 6 full pages here of hating on conservatives for their supposed hate? You guys use that word too much for anyone to think you're sincere.

"Liberals hate family" is a nasty way of pointing out that liberal policies have contributed to a radical single generation corruption of what family meant and can mean. Marriage, like family, like the sanctity of life are all under assault from liberal policy and all basically compromised or devalued. The question is not about the hatred of family, but why is liberalism destroying our culture?

With culture, I don't think in terms of what should be legal, that is the liberal trick of using legalisms to attack tradition, I think in terms of what is propagated personally. I think this is the case throughout conservative proponents; there was an interest in promoting healthy families. This has become a court battle and is now entirely discussed as a matter of democratic decision making - law. The federalization of culture must result in legal battles and this federalization is a relatively new and very liberal way of modifying culture. It's an end run around tradition. Neo-conism is a reaction to that.
Rik considers me a liberal so I will tell you that I do not hate the traditional family. I just recognize that the traditional family isn't for everyone, and that non-traditional families can work too.
By keso
Paradigm wrote:George Lakoff believes that political differences often come down to two different cognitive metaphors of family: the strict father metaphor and the nurturant parent metaphor. No one's psychology is composed purely of one or the other, but conservatives tend to be more influenced by the strict father metaphor while liberals tend to be more influenced by the nurturant parent metaphor. The strict father metaphor emphasizes strict discipline, punishment for stepping out of line, and an emphasis on group conformity. The nurturant parent metaphor emphasizes compassion, understanding, and tolerance. Both of these models are "traditional family." Both of them go back to the beginnings of humankind.

Basically, the simplest answer I can give to this question is that I don't consider hate to be a traditional family value.

Interesting in that the metaphor seems to be a, "traditional," male vs female philosophy of parenting.

And the logical extension of that, is that a one-parent household gives a slanted view
I have to say here that I am kind of tired of having it suggested by conservatives that I hate various things. I HATE nothing and nobody. Am I am a liberal. Please, conservatives, throw that word in the trash bin.

I am 71 years old. I got married when I was 23 and stayed in that marriage until my wife passed away 48 years later. Mine was a traditional family. How, pray tell, is a conservative traditional family different than my traditional family? The only difference that I know of is that I never tried to jam the Bible down anyone's throat.

I am a liberal. I do not believe in divorce. My opinion regarding gay marriage is that it is not a good idea. I think abortion is terrible.

Now here is why I am not a conservative but a liberal. Here is the difference.

I, unlike an extreme conservative, do not think it is my business to dictate to other citizens how to live their lives. Divorce, Marriage and abortion should be matters of individual conscience.
I, unlike an extreme conservative, would never, even if I could do so with impunity, mix up religious law with civil law. In America the two are separate. That means no ten commandments on public property. Period. Why? Because ten commandments are religion. Shall we have "Christian Sharia" just because a loud minority wants to mix religion with politics?
I, unlike an extreme conservative, do not think that just because the majority of citizens are Christian, that we can make the claim that America is Christian. America is for everybody equally. Religions are out of line when then try to force their beliefs on others.
I, unlike an extreme conservative, think that if corporate power can legally be used to influence congress through lobbies then the common working stiff should be able to form his/her own advocacy groups (unions). Fair is fair.
I, unlike an extreme conservative, do not think that the highest and best model of democracy is unbridled freedom through lack of regulation for big business. History shows us that when we have too much freedom we tend to abuse it. And when those with lots of money go bad they cause a lot of trouble for us all.

I am a liberal. Freedom applies to us all, not just to the loudest voices.
The idea of family is at the core of the question, and at the core of how we define ourselves.

Conservatives are conservative because they see this as being the best way of protecting and improving their family.

Ditto for liberals.

The big difference is if you think the people next door are your family or a threat to your family.

Btw, I honestly feel that speaking of people of your own race as your community,to the exclusion of others is racist.

Also, nationalism is the next racism.

Can you guess how I feel about the people down the street, or across the border?
"Whathastobedone"]The vast majority of conservative thinkers and intellectuals have said yes, and have provided strong arguments to support their assessments.

You are using "conservative thinkers" and "intellectuals" in the same sentence. This is a bit much. The conservatives now-a-days are defined by guys like Limbaugh. He, most definitely, is neither a thinker nor a intellectual. There used to be conservatives like you describe and there might still be but if any were to rise up in the present political climate with something really smart to say he or she would immediately be "primaried" and kicked out of office by the TP using Koch money.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

“Are the hallucinations natural?” damn :lol: C’mo[…]

An argument against a higher target is that infla[…]

That is a terrible idea, buy some jerry cans. o[…]

Thanks for the daily dose of meaningless and unfa[…]