one.dakine.howlie #fundie

one.dakine.howlie #fundie theblaze.com

I think you’ve hit a significant nail straight on the head. This is a bigger issue than just gay marriage or homosexuality in general. The liberal mentality has been fighting against the importance of families in general. They look at “family” and it’s structure as significant as what you would buy at the grocery store or what car you choose to drive. They don’t look at families as the foundational building block of all civilization. This is where we get the ideology of feminism (no woman actually needs a man), collectivism (they’re not your kid, they’re OURS), “swinger” lifestyles and in general the discouragement of marriage (families are not important in order build/maintain a healthy civilization and we’re just animals anyway; animals don’t care about loyalty to a partner. Go do whatever makes you feel good.) homosexuality (there is no difference between the roles that men and women play in a family), transgenderism (you can pick what gender you want to be because there’s no difference between a man and a women), and a whole slew of ills that are eating away at our society. Most people do not even realize why the family structure is so important to everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. Macro/Micro-economics, freedom, the rule of law, inalienable rights of individuals, personal happiness, innovation, community, society, etc. etc.

23 comments

old comment by Nomen Nescio

family structure is important to the families thusly structured.

and that's it, really. there are many different ways to organize families, and the "norm" (when there's been one) for that has varied over time, and varies currently between societies. the modern western-world "nuclear" family is something of an innovation; western societies used to go with an "extended family" model, not too long ago.

the point is, any of several ways to organize families and raise kids are known to work in actual practice. don't act all outraged that somebody might use a different one from yours.

all of that, though, is just family structure. that's nothing much to do with larger society, or "civilization". they are built out of individuals, not family groups. that larger-scale thing you build out of family groups? that's called a clan, it was a precursor to larger and more inclusive nation structures, and hasn't been necessary for millennia now.

old comment by Yossarian Lives

I don't know many liberals that advocate the destruction of the idealised, nuclear family, but I have heard points put forth by social liberals arguing that the living habits of a family should be more flexible (i.e. it's up to them how it's structured, provided that it's safe and suitable for all of its inhabitants). If you want to live as a more traditional family unit with a husband and wife bringing up their kids, then fine, be my guest, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals or single parents that may share a flat with friends should be stigmatised.

This idea of the progressive having a desire to destroy the family unit is akin to the idea that they want to encourage others into interracial relationships, or same-sex marriages. It's a load of rubbish.

old comment by The Reptilian Jew

I think you’ve hit a significant nail straight on the head.
image
This is a bigger issue than just gay marriage or homosexuality in general.
Oh, that. Gays are evil. Yawn.
The liberal mentality has been fighting against the importance of families in general.
And they also kick dogs.
They look at “family” and it’s structure as significant as what you would buy at the grocery store or what car you choose to drive.
Lying for Jesus! Yay!
They don’t look at families as the foundational building block of all civilization.
Twofold lie. One: Most liberals also hold families in high esteem. My family is entirely composed of liberals and we're one of your precious multi-generational families (me, my parents, grandparents, and formerly even my great-grandmother). Sure, my parents are divorced, but it was incredibly hard.
Two: Family isn't the foundation of civilization. That would be social contracts. Read a bit of social philosophy, wouldja? Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, nothing? Come on.
This is where we get the ideology of
And with this non-sequitur begins a long line of generalizations, misconceptions, half-truths and deliberate lies.
feminism (no woman actually needs a man)
Nope. The central idea of feminism is merely that women aren't glorified household objects, but human beings equal to men. Notice my usage of "equal" instead of "interchangeable".
I cannot decide whether you accidentally generalized radfems as typical, or you're intentionally lying. In the former case, I feel sorry for you. In the latter case, fuck you.
collectivism (they’re not your kid, they’re OURS)
Two goddamn minutes on Wikipedia disproved you, you lying pig.
Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being.
My mind boggles trying to imagine the mental gymnastics needed to start with this and conclude that teh libruls are after yo' kids.
“swinger” lifestyles and in general the discouragement of marriage (families are not important in order build/maintain a healthy civilization and we’re just animals anyway; animals don’t care about loyalty to a partner. Go do whatever makes you feel good.)
Animals don't care about loyalty.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
There is a breed of parrots who are exclusively monogamous. Dogs are able to fall in love. Cichlids (a genus of fish, mind you) are also monogamous and live in nuclear families.
So lying again. Why am I not surprised?
Also, not getting married immediately after your 18th birthday means that you think and behave like an animal?
image
homosexuality (there is no difference between the roles that men and women play in a family)
*GROAN*
The old "ghey=feminine" fallacy. PRATT so I won't even waste my precious time with this.
transgenderism (you can pick what gender you want to be because there’s no difference between a man and a women),
image
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN.
Trans people are not trans because they woke up one day and were like "welp, I wonder what's it like to be a dude/chick". These people are suffering because their gender identity doesn't match their biological sex. Fuck yourself with a morningstar please.
image
I'd also note your stunning ignorance on the subject. How about agenders? Genderfluids? Hermaphrodites, androgynous people, hijras (third-genders) etc. ? While there are only two possible sets of genitals, human gender identity is a garbled, chaotic mess. Jamming it into two misshapen boxes is the epitome of ignorance.
and a whole slew of ills that are eating away at our society.
Won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?
Most people do not even realize why the family structure is so important to everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.
And you fail to give a reason, too.
...God I hate the proof by assertion fallacy.
Macro/Micro-economics,
Micro-economics maybe, but macro-economics? Bitch please.
freedom,
How...?
No, really, how?
the rule of law,
"Ehrmahgerd teh libruls still have freedom of speech! Society is DOOMED! DOOOOOOMED!"
Nice attempt at stoking panic, you worm.
inalienable rights of individuals,
which includes the right to pursue happiness, which you are denying from people by forcing them to conform to a system that is incompatible with their sexuality, thus causing their unahppiness.
personal happiness,
See above.
innovation,
Wait, I thought that it was you Bible-thumpers who feared any kind of innovation and progress like the plague...?
community, society,
See aboDOOOOOOOOOOOOMEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!
etc. etc.
"I don't even need to list all arguments, I win by default!"
Another proof by assertion. Eurgh.

I don't even know what to say about this. Other than that the guy is probably a closeted gay. And the closet has titanium plating.
My work here is done.