Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting rather sick and tired of Conservative propaganda being carried out erroneously in the name of "family values." Fundamentalists act as if morality can only ever be derived from the Bible, and that anyone who doesn't believe in their religion--with the same interpretation that they believe--is somehow immoral and unfit to raise a family. I'm tired of seeing homophobic organizations like the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, or the Christian Coalition.

Conservatives shouldn't hold a monopoly on the word "family" or the idea of "family values" (however someone could define that). This article discusses some good reasons how Conservatives are NOT promoting healthy family environments, and one quote from that article that I really like and can agree with is, "Real family values means realizing that people who think or live differently than you can be good parents too. The Religious Right has always been too immature and intolerant to recognize this."

So why is it that these Fundamentalists believe that they know better than anyone else on how to raise and manage a family? What makes them more apt at raising families in America than anyone else?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Just a hint... if you're planning on having serious discussion about this, using inflammatory words such as "fundie" doesn't help.

_________________

Edited--and I apologize. I didn't realize that they took so much offense to that term.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Just reminded me of Rose and her attitude, I guess. No harm intended, no foul.

I read the article you linked to, and as I mostly agree with the points that are made, I don't have anything to debate here.

I had no idea I was so opposed to the main viewpoints of The Religious Right. Hmm.

_________________

Who are you to call Focus on the Family or any other Christian group "homophobic"? Homophobes hate homosexuals. Christianity is not a religion of hate, despite what some vocal, self-proclaimed Christians may think or say. Calling conservative Christians "fundies" is certainly inflamatory, but equally so is calling Conservative Christian groups "homophobic".

EDIT: Ok, I read through the article a little bit, and it's basically liberal pandering, telling them exactly what they want to hear in attempts to make them feel good about their views. The author provides no evidence to back his arguments, and basically presents his opinions as undeniable fact. For example, he says that Dr. James Dobson "advocates violence towards children" despite "numerous studies" that show it has a negative effect, yet he cites no sources, no quotes, just moves right along leaving questions unanswered. The author also accuses conservatives of being anti-American, yet again, shows no proof! The closing statement is probably the most ironic of all: "They can call it "pro-family" if they want, but plenty of evidence, including plain old-fashioned common sense, would seem to indicate otherwise". Has he not read his own statements? Where is the so-called "evidence"?

I apologize for what may be vehement statements, but nothing grinds my gears like baseless accusations.

_________________

All those organizations I have mentioned act fervently against homosexuals, favoring bans on gay marriage. I know that not all Christians--not even all Conservative Christians--are homophobic. But when these organizations fight so hard to spit in the face of my civil rights, I can't help but wonder how many homophobes are working in such organizations. These are organizations that put forth so much effort to stop a consenting, adult couple truly in love from getting the same legal rights in marriage, yet are rarely ever seen putting forth much effort to stop divorce or do anything else to "preserve" marriage (as they claim to ideally do).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

DING DING DING DING DING!!!
You hit the nail on the head!
While I may or may not think there is something wrong with gay marriage (I've addressed before that my opinion is apathy), it seems pretty funny to see all of the divorce and adultry going on in the so-called "moral high ground". Seems to me that groups should look inward to fix problems before they look outward.

Quickie marriages (by which I mean the "hollywood wedding" where people are together for a week) and a very high divorce rate among people who should know better are much more a threat to marriage (in my opinion) than two people of the same sex, unless, of course, gay people get divorce at the same rate as straight people (even then, it's a moot point).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Who ever said adultery and divorce aren't problems? Is there massive media attention on adultery and divorce? The thing is, gay marriage is a current issue, the front line, if you will. Just because we don't see the other fronts doesn't mean they aren't there.

_________________

But if these people were really so eager to stick to their moral guns, they'd be pushing for legislation to restrict and deny divorces and to make adultery a heavier crime just as much as they would be trying to ban gay marriage. They'd also be trying to prevent people like rapists and murderers and other convicted criminals from being allowed to adopt children (which currently, they most often ARE allowed), but instead they're just trying to keep gay couples from being parents, simply because of unfounded prejudices. All they truly seem to be concerned about in the marriage field is preventing a different class of people from having the same legal rights as them, and for no good, secularly-justifiable reason. They stand behind their Bibles and the term "family values" to garner support for prejudice, religious legislation.

Any sociologist worth their salt will tell you that anyone--even non-Christians and homosexuals--have the potential to be good parents and loving husbands and wives who earnestly care for their families. Yet this malarky from the Conservative side would have you believe that "family values" are only capable and managable through accepting their own religious beliefs, which include rejecting science (evolution), denying children education (like when it comes to sex education--all they support is abstinence), and fostering religious intolerance and prejudiced ideas against people who are different. Like that article said, ignorance is not a family value, prejudice and hate aren't family values, and denying education is not a family value. Now I'm not saying that ALL Conservatives act this way--especially when it comes to having actual hate for people different from yourself--but there are still too many who DO support and embrace such prejudice and hate, passing it on to their children as if it's something "moral," as if it's good "family values."

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Your arguments use that article as their basis, yet the article itself is flawed and biased.

_________________

Sorry--I didn't see that edit in your post before. And I agree that the article isn't everything it could be. However, from what I have seen of Conservative organizations like the ones I previously mentioned, they carry an attitude that no one outside of their religious belief system is capable of managing families in any sort of responsible and moral way. My main qualm is with this "holier-than-thou" attitude they present, especially when it comes to families in this case.

I do have problems agreeing with that one claim in the article about spanking children...but the other points--the ones I mentioned before such as Creationism being forced into public school science classrooms and denying gays the right to marry while doing nothing to lower divorce rates amongst heterosexual couples--I think are still very valid.

Maybe it'd be a lot easier if the Conservatives actually laid out some definitions of what they consider to be "family values," instead of leaving it so ambiguous, so that we could have something more substantial to debate.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

and the bible isn't?

Whatever the merits of the article PianoManGidley linked to, I do feel that phrases like "family values" are code words for ideas (like homophobia) that really don't match my idea of "family values". I hate the phrase every time I hear it, because it's usually being used to push some kind of agenda that I don't agree with.

- Kef

Not only do I find this offensive and demeaning to Christianity, it seems that you have no basis on which to support your accusation. Please expound and give examples before making such a ridiculous claim. And I'm sure that Didymus or somebody else who knows more about Christianity than I will continue upon my point.

_________________

Something more I've always wondered: Can anyone actually define family values? Is there a list of what these "family values" are supposed to be? Because to me, from what I've seen, it's nothing more than political rhetoric and pander for an undefined, unspecified idea. Everyone always talks about "family values" without ever telling us precisely WHAT we should be valuing in families.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Well, for me, "family values" equals these things:

1. Father and mother present in the home.

2. No drug or alcohol abuse in the home.

3. Children are cared for financially and health-wise and supported in their education and other activities by the parents.

4. Parents and children love each other.

5. Parents keep immoral and violent media out of the home.


That's my personal take.

_________________

Sounds like you've answered the question posed in the title with a resounding "yes", then, and I'm quite inclined to agree.

"Immoral" is a pretty subjective thing, though.

While, personally, I would rather my kids grow up in a household that worships and praises God, I don't think people that don't are necessarily going to be bad people.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Lahi, I'm going to edit your family values list to display what my personal beliefs are:

1. Capable caregiver(s) present in the home.
2. No drug or alcohol abuse in the home. (Completely agree with you here.)
3. Children are cared for financially and health-wise and supported in their education and other activities by the caregiver(s).
4. Caregiver(s) and children love each other.
5. Caregiver(s) keep immoral and violent media out of the home. --This one, however, will mean different things to different families. What some might consider immoral or violent, others may not. Mild example - some families wouldn't DREAM of owning a gun (for protection, hunting, whatever), but for many families it's commonplace.

You and I actually aren't TOO far apart with our beliefs. The reason I changed "parent" to "caregiver" is because I know lots of families where the parents aren't the ones providing for the children, it may be aunts/uncles, grandparents, foster parents, one-parent households, etc. It really just boils down to semantics, because one could argue that a parent is anyone who handles the primary caregiving for a child. As for homosexual parents, I believe Oprah Winfrey said it best: "Whoever can love the child, should care for the child." This world has so little love, why anyone would want to stamp any of it out is beyond me.

Despite a lack of evidence (even though I'm don't consider myself very conservative, that's the kind of family I was raised in and I have several friends who are, so I do take it personally when the Religious Right is attacked), I agree with most of the points Mr. Boston makes (but only when speaking about Right-wing Extremeists...I don't like extremism of any kind), but I do question number 8: Hating America is not pro-family. He's right, just on that point, but to accuse Conservatives of hating America? Huh? I thought they were the ones who were stereotypically viewed as being extremely patriotic?

PMG - I completely agree with what you said about how the Right SHOULD be lobbying against adultery and quickie marriages. Heck, as a woman who's had to already deal with too much crap in relationships, I WISH someone would punish people for adultery! (Ok, maybe that's impractical, but you get my idea.)

Now, as for teaching evolution/creationism and sex ed. programs in schools, I think my own schooling had it pretty good. In school, I was taught evolution, and at church and home, I was taught creation. Sex Ed.? Our teacher presented us with the facts, telling us the truth about sex, pregnancy, STDs and AIDS, forms of contraception, and ALSO abstinence. At home, I was taught that abstinence is the ideal, and that sex is to be respected, but not feared. Oh - parents were given the option of having their child opt out of the sex ed. program. Only one of the kids in my grade did.

But back to the article. Despite agreeing with several of its points, it doesn't sit well with me, both because of it's lack of evidence and its attacks on the relgious right. Just once, I want someone from one side of the political spectrum not to say what the other side is doing wrong, but to say what THEY are doing that is right.

_________________

Well, really, you can have no problems with homosexuals, but still be afraid of them.

Little sidenote: The Greek word phobia means "hate" as well as "fear".

_________________

But did that defenition transfer over to English? i've only heard of it as fear.

why would one be afraid of homosexuals?

Because they are different. They are not what is thought to be normal. God fearers are afraid of anything that does not go with their beliefs.

_________________

Fear is not the same as disapproval. But nice try.

_________________

The original quote was:



to which I posed the question: "why would one be afraid of homosexuals?".

Clearly Code J is christian, and Code J is scared. Yet he doesn't disapprove.

It only seems to come up in the case of homophobia.

_________________

Code J is afraid of homosexuals? I never saw him say that...he hasn't really acted scared around me--not from what I can tell at least. As for why someone would fear homosexuals, this article explains it pretty well.

I like StrongCanada's list of "family values" better than Lahi's, I must admit, because I've seen plenty of families that don't have the traditional father and mother figures, yet still manage to raise kids perfectly fine.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

My mistake, his post seemed to suggest it to me.

bless.

I'm convinced that some people really are afraid of homosexuals, but I don't really know of anybody who's afraid but not hateful of them.

Heh. Sorry, but I'm about as atheist as you can get. And homosexuality? I don't fear (or feel uncomfortable, for that matter) homosexuals at all. In fact, I respect them for having to put up with all the crap that they have to put up with.