Under threat from what? Other then the Mail's own fear of slight change.
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
Under threat from what? Other then the Mail's own fear of slight change.
Probably this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data
I'm not really big on marriage myself, and it appears plenty of other people feel the same way.
Why should it be anyone's business? Get married if you want, don't if you don't want to. If anything it just shows that pressure to get married that existent decades ago has gone.
I agree, but I'm just offering it up as an example for why they feel that 'traditional family life is under threat'.
Also, let's not underplay it, it's not a 'slight change' as you suggest, it's a pretty huge shift:
Marriage rate (UK)
Heterosexual males who would otherwise produce nice middle class families are going to be marrying men now. The world is doomed.
I agree, but I'm just offering it up as an example for why they feel that 'traditional family life is under threat'.
Also, let's not underplay it, it's not a 'slight change' as you suggest, it's a pretty huge shift:
Marriage rate (UK)
I didn't realize I underplayed it.
Because I don't care what other people do with their relationships.
Marriage is stupid. And the Daily Mail thinking that it's under-threat isn't going to make me get married. The idiots.
You might think marriage is stupid, but it's basically the best thing for a child, which is why it should be encouraged.
It's just a narrative they create, which is then vacantly consumed by a lot of malleable-minded folk who can become indignant about it. Worked with immigration.
But yeah, the whole "defence of the traditional family" is just another way of saying "I am indeed a bigot, let me meddle in your life".
Well said, Tribec !!
Exactly, then you should be for same-sex Marriage.
More people getting married is a conservative ideal, or so I thought.
Loving parents are the best thing for a child. The only reason having two male parents or two women or two transgender parents may be damaging is because people like you will feel the need to make it seem weird. A child is a blank canvass.
I just look at what happens to fatherless children. I find it very important that a child has a male and female influence in their life; the stats back it up, with regard to a plethora of issues such as crime and suicide among young people, among others.
Now, clearly, some people don't fit into this, and herein lies the difference between me and the Mail. I don't have a problem with it, whereas the Mail make it out to be some horrendous failing as a person.
I'm all for marriage of all types - it provides stability that a non-married couple cannot provide. If you look at the disintegration of the marriage system in France, for example, you will see the impact it's having on children from all backgrounds.
Says who? Prove it!
Sure kids growing up with married parents will be on average more stable than kids growing up without married parents, but that's on average. The majority of "stable" couples will get married, so the married couple statistics have virtually all the "stable" couples and the unmarried statistics will have a lot of the "unstable" coubles. But...
A child growing up with stable parents who do everything a normal couple would do except get married, will have an absolutely identical life to those who don't. Absolutely identical, aside from maybe the odd "Your mum and dad aren't married? Thats weird." "Yeah, they said they think it's a bit stupid, but they still love each other just as much". "Ah okay"
Again, marridge is stupid.
Some couples choose not to get married for a variety of reasons(normally extreme leftitude) but are completely stable and fine, of course.
The point is that marriage is a union which takes some effort to break. Being unmarried allows a lot more freedom for the individual, which is great in some respects, but it does end up meaning that in the case of a break-up, the child may well not see one of his two parents at all. Marriage of parents ensures certain laws to protect the child from that.
What stats? There are probably millions of kids in the UK who were raised by a single parent who turned out fine, I've never seen anything that can point to a significant difference in being raised by one gender compared to two genders. Not to mention the fact that even if there was some difference it is likely caused by other people telling the child that the environment they grew up in is weird and not normal, not because they lack a certain gender role model.
Shooting an unarmed man in the face is also a fundamental right, health care is not, so probably best not to look to them as arbitrators of rights.
As for your point on courts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18350615
That's a horrible argument. I expected better from you.
I can't see how it's the best thing for a child, Al. Parents staying together might be better. In fact, let's say it is the best. It doesn't mean they'll stay together.
"Statistics mean nothing to the individual." - Dr Cox.
I can only speak from experience. Out of seven children from grandparents, five got married, two didn't. One got divorced, one separated.
My parents aren't married, after my dad saw my grandma go through a divorce he was put off marriage from it (or so I've heard), I've turned out fine (don't.). The other lads from separated parents are fine, the ones from married parents are fine, and the ones from the divorced parents are fine.
If two people want to separate that badly, they will. Divorce isn't an easy process, but it's not exactly impossible.
And all that is assuming that kids of divorced/separated parents will struggle with whatever, something I've yet to really see.
The father/mother has rights anyway. They might be fewer than if married, but they are still there. Either way, a child of divorce isn't in an exactly stable environment. I'd like to say that it might actually be better for the child to avoid the 'messy divorce' but I'm not sure I believe that. Either way isn't great for the child.
What's wrong? One point explained why it might not be best to just point to the conclusion America that has arrived at as being the correct one, the other was illustrating that freedom of speech in a court setting (linking to my earlier point on the conflicts with right to a free trial) is not as simple as exceptional gagging orders on active participants.
I'd have to look into the gagging issue but I'm not very inclined to do research when you resort to "here are unrelated laws I disagree with".
If anything the Leveson inquiry has shown how corrupt the media is, not that they are ever held responsible.
Different scale completely, this forum can hardly cause the same effects that a national newspaper can. If you post ruins her life, you are responsible for that.
Yeah.
Not unrelated when you bring America's stance on rights into it as definitive. I think scrutiny of their views on other rights is fair game.
I'm not bringing it up as definitive. I'm pointing it out as an answer to your question. Do I need to restate a Supreme Court ruling because you haven't bothered to read up on it?
The scale should be irrelevant - the same law should apply to everyone, regardless whether anyone happens to care what they say.
The scale is vital, I'm not saying he should be prosecuted because he wrote that - but because the woman was still being harassed after the article was published. She sent a complaint in to the PCC a day or two after the article went out and she continued to be harassed, at this point it stops being freedom of speech and becomes outright victimization by the Press.
Pretty sure that sentence could get you dragged up before the Paedofinder general.
That suggests more that it's essential to make the regulator a better watchdog. Recent events have shown how much of a shitstorm that can brew. Basically everything's just FUBAR.
Prosecute those doing the harassing if that's the case.
I did the briefest bit of reading around the laws regarding hate speech as I know next to nothing. So whether speech creates 'imminent danger', seems to be the line used in the States. I think I agree with laws against inciting violence over those also punishing incitement of hatred, but the 'imminent', part and the boundaries between hate and violence (as discussed) seems really hard to get my head around.
Taking this to the extreme, we as humans have shown how much damage we can inflict upon each other when the social setting/stigma that protects us against our base impulses and emotions is dramatically changed or removed. Speech that dehumanises groups of people can surely create over time an environment where it seems, to those influenced, socially acceptable to discriminate or commit violence against those people. I get it's up to us as a collective to determine what's socially acceptable or not & it's important not to have government dictate what we can and can't think beyond protecting us, but in that example, those who strongly influence others in committing crimes should surely have a chance of being held accountable by law. And I understand that proving influence is an incredibly difficult and subjective thing.
Or is that all wrong? I know that line of thinking leads to an argument for charges against anything remotely inflammatory, which is obviously nonsense. It just seems like a mindfeck trying to draw the line between the right we should have to say something that could insult & some sort of government protection from harm - words that create an environment that can cause real damage & maybe not imminently. Apologies for rambling.
More directly related to recent events, it's maddening what a shit lot in life people who are transgendered currently seem to have. It obviously varies all over the world but widespread acceptance seems comparatively so far behind differences in sexuality. I've not helped there, but even the fact that the support community is part of LGBT is stupid enough, as combining sexuality and gender causes some of the problems faced. Reading so many accounts of people being rejected by their own families let alone anyone else, is upsetting. It's not even about empathy or compassion - not giving a shit about how others live their own lives while not hurting others, seems truly a blessing.
Taking this to the extreme, we as humans have shown how much damage we can inflict upon each other when the social setting/stigma that protects us against our base impulses and emotions is dramatically changed or removed. Speech that dehumanises groups of people can surely create over time an environment where it seems, to those influenced, socially acceptable to discriminate or commit violence against those people. I get it's up to us as a collective to determine what's socially acceptable or not & it's important not to have government dictate what we can and can't think beyond protecting us, but in that example, those who strongly influence others in committing crimes should surely have a chance of being held accountable by law. And I understand that proving influence is an incredibly difficult and subjective thing.
Or is that all wrong? I know that line of thinking leads to an argument for charges against anything remotely inflammatory, which is obviously nonsense. It just seems like a mindfeck trying to draw the line between the right we should have to say something that could insult & some sort of government protection from harm - words that create an environment that can cause real damage & maybe not imminently. Apologies for rambling.
More directly related to recent events, it's maddening what a shit lot in life people who are transgendered currently seem to have. It obviously varies all over the world but widespread acceptance seems comparatively so far behind differences in sexuality. I've not helped there, but even the fact that the support community is part of LGBT is stupid enough, as combining sexuality and gender causes some of the problems faced. Reading so many accounts of people being rejected by their own families let alone anyone else, is upsetting. It's not even about empathy or compassion - not giving a shit about how others live their own lives while not hurting others, seems truly a blessing.
As a teacher (at least for a few days yet) I have experienced quite a few kids that have gone off the rails or are possibly doing so.
I'd say that troubled kids are brought up more often by single parents or by grandparents but it is far from clear cut. The vast majority of single parents manage to produce great kids and married parents can also produce "problem" kids even with the best will in the world. I only know a few gay couples with kids but their kids have all turned out perfectly normally and (Al will be relieved to know) heterosexual. Their friends and kids at school don't even think to comment because it is so normal to everyone.
In the end socio-economic factors and bad parenting produced "bad" kids in the main and while that is harder for a single parent to provide the parenting that a couple can just in practical terms, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that same sex parents don't provide just as good parental support as heterosexual couples.
As for gay marriage attacking family values - bollocks. A stupid thing to assert. Gay people will engage in gay marriage without tempting heterosexuals away from "real" marriage.
With divorce so easy and widespread I'm not sure that marriage even serves any real purpose any more.
I'd say that troubled kids are brought up more often by single parents or by grandparents but it is far from clear cut. The vast majority of single parents manage to produce great kids and married parents can also produce "problem" kids even with the best will in the world. I only know a few gay couples with kids but their kids have all turned out perfectly normally and (Al will be relieved to know) heterosexual. Their friends and kids at school don't even think to comment because it is so normal to everyone.
In the end socio-economic factors and bad parenting produced "bad" kids in the main and while that is harder for a single parent to provide the parenting that a couple can just in practical terms, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that same sex parents don't provide just as good parental support as heterosexual couples.
As for gay marriage attacking family values - bollocks. A stupid thing to assert. Gay people will engage in gay marriage without tempting heterosexuals away from "real" marriage.
With divorce so easy and widespread I'm not sure that marriage even serves any real purpose any more.
Not exactly tempt...
Yeah, I read that in the Mail too, mate.
Good post, Wibs. It's funny, in a manner of speaking, how the legendarily chaste and monogamous hetero population feels under threat from homosexuals.
Or how people who espouse family values are abhorred by other people's attempts to create families.
If you weren't an admin, I would probably report the bit in bold. Clearly, I have no problem with gay people, and insinuating I do really isn't on.
The problem with your post is that no-one has actually said anything about gay couples raising children - you've just assumed it to be a problem, which is relatively ironic.
My issue with family disintegration isn't the sex of the parents, it's the lack of them. And yes, I believe in an ideal world, every child would have both a male and female influence in their life(something which is not just parental - look at the gender ratio of primary school teachers), but I don't have a problem with gay parents. The issue here is clearly that some kids don't get the opportunity to see one of their two parents regularly.
Well thats a load of bollocks
Love, care and affection are the utmost important things!!! Not a piece of paper and a fecking wedding ring and a big day out to boot.My brother had three kids with his missus, the first born was into his teens before they contemplated getting married. The only reason they got married in the end was so they could say well we have now gone the whole hog so to speak.