Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>     This note springboards from Note 91.769

        I believe that part, but not all, of our disagreement stems
        from the ambiguity of what is meant by a "definition of a
        family".

        The kind of definition under discussion is not an attempt to
        define what a family should or must be but rather is just a
        necessary bureaucratic definition of what groups come under
        particular legal covenants.  The traditional legal definition
        of a family was never intended, for example, to perfectly
        cover every legitimate example of a family and to exclude,
        perfectly, every illegitimate example.  It is just a rule
        like so many in society that is necessary to regulate the
        activity of bureaucrats.  It does not define, in reality,
        what is and is not a family.

        And if this rule were changed, it would be for the purpose of
        changing the activity of bureaucrats and those affected by
        certain laws.  It in no way defines what really is a family
        (assuming that society could ever come to agreement on such a
        thing).  It is simply defining to what groups laws that apply to
        so-called families apply.

        Pat Robertson is playing on this ambiguity.  He wants to
        raise fear in people by offering the superficially plausible
        but incorrect suggestion that if the regulatory definition of
        "family" were changed, then somehow the reality of people in
        groups, both traditional and otherwise, would be altered. 
        This is nonsense, although it seems to be a typical tactic of
        the radical right to play on such ambiguities and the fear
        that can be raised when basic structures appear to be
        threatened.

        A government rule could distinguish between apples and
        oranges for the purpose of taxation.  If that rule were
        changed to say that there was no distinction between apples
        and oranges, would either the apples or the oranges be
        changed or "threatened" in any way?

        Bob

    
    Skipping over the political implications (taxation, etc.) for a moment,
    I try to look upon the entire human race as my family.
    
    Now back to the 'real world'.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

I took a course at UCCS a few semesters ago entitled Sociology of the Family.

It seems the actual existence of the Ozzie and Harriet style family (1 working
man, 1 unemployed woman, 2 offspring, a household in the suburbs, independant of
other relatives) was never as pervasive as the myth of the '50's would have
us believe.

Family is very difficult to define so that it encompasses all the possible
configurations which could truly be called a family.  Defining the family
by the criteria in the preceding paragraph alone excludes many households
which I think we could all agree might constitute a genuine family: single
parent households; households with adopted children; multi-generational
households; households in which the children are being raised by an aunt,
uncle, oldest sibling or some other relative; households with stepchildren,
households without children; and dual-income households, just to name a few.

A friend of mine defines family this way:  "Love makes a family; nothing less,
nothing else."  An idealization to be sure, but I think her assessment is
essentially a good one.

Peace,
Richard

    The human family by biblical standards (in my opinion) is husband, wife
    and children (and relatives).
    
    In the natural world, there seems to be a very flexible definition of
    family; depending upon the animal you'll find models that are like the
    biblical standard, and other models that are totally different.
    
    It seems strange to me that nature would exhibit such diverse models of
    family, and god would decree that humans should limit themselves to
    such a narrow one. Unless you ascribe to the idea that humans are
    higher than animals.
    
    Pete.

Re:  382.1

Bob,

  >I believe that part, but not all, of our disagreement stems
  >from the ambiguity of what is meant by a "definition of a
  >family".

  >The kind of definition under discussion is not an attempt to
  >define what a family should or must be but rather is just a
  >necessary bureaucratic definition of what groups come under
  >particular legal covenants.  

Gay right's activist do *not* limit their desire to change the
family to a government definition.  The desperately want and desire
to change *society's* definition of a family as well, just as they
want to change *society's* attitude toward homosexual sexual
behavior.  I object strenuously to both of their goals.

Collis

re Note 382.5 by 62465::JACKSON:

> Gay right's activist do *not* limit their desire to change the
> family to a government definition.  The desperately want and desire
> to change *society's* definition of a family as well, just as they
> want to change *society's* attitude toward homosexual sexual
> behavior.  I object strenuously to both of their goals.
  
        As long as you realize that they are separate -- and
        independent.

        To limit, for example, the "family visitation" rights of one
        person to their dying gay lover simply because one fears
        (rightfully or wrongfully) some other agenda, is simple
        inhumanity.

        Bob

|  >The kind of definition under discussion is not an attempt to
|  >define what a family should or must be but rather is just a
|  >necessary bureaucratic definition of what groups come under
|  >particular legal covenants.  
|
| Gay right's activist do *not* limit their desire to change the
| family to a government definition.  
    
    Government and societal definitions should be seen as basically
    the same.  For example, Lotus has extended its definition of
    family for purposes of medical insurance.  The government didn't
    have anything to do with it.
    
    The difference that you *can* keep is your different theological
    definition...
    

| Gay right's activist do *not* limit their desire to change the
| family to a government definition.  The desperately want and desire
| to change *society's* definition of a family as well, just as they
| want to change *society's* attitude toward homosexual sexual
| behavior.  I object strenuously to both of their goals.

	Collis, if you mean by change society's view towards gays will include
the bigotry that exists, the misconceptions that lesbigays will sleep with 
children, turn heterosexuals into lesbigays, that lesbigays aren't capable of
truly loving another person of the same sex, that we will sleep with anyone,
that we are anything BUT human, and any of the many other misconceptions people
have about us, then yes, you are right. Do you feel these things are wrong to
believe when the truth is they don't really exist? 

	I can't speak for everyone, but I know the people that I have come in 
contact with seem to want one thing mostly, that is to be looked at by others 
as nothing more than an equal, as another human being. No one who isn't hurting 
another human being should expect anything less.

	I agree with the note a few back when they said there seems to be a
difference between the Biblical family and what the rest of the world views as
family. 




Glen

Nancy,

I do not know of any significant movement to redefine family
primarily to include people who happen to live at the same address.
Should such a position be proposed, I would strongly oppose
that (and I expect Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson and many other
conservative Christians) as being unBiblical, unnecessary
and problematic.  I, personally, do not see the "benefits" of it
but rather see the extensive problems that this would lead to.

Collis

    "people who happen to live at the same address" could be
    people in a boarding house.  This is *not* the same as people
    who have jointly established a shared household!  The latter can be
    gay couples, elderly siblings whom we might assume do not
    have sex with each other, a son and his widowed mother, or
    various other situations -- including two or more single, unrelated people
    who do not have sex with each other!
    
    I have certainly seen this proposed.  Perhaps someone else can
    provide info.  The benefits would be in areas of medical insurance,
    hospital visitation (as someone else pointed out), designating
    a non-blood-relative as your next-of-kin, etc., etc.  
    
    Surely you can see that these *are* benefits -- and I'd bet you would
    be willing to grant them to folks in many situations, as long as you
    could exclude gays...

Actually, Nancy, you are quite wrong.  I do not have any
vendetta against those with homosexual desires.  Rather, I
have a commitment to God's institutions as expressed through
His Word.

The "benefits" that you talk about are NOT free.  They come
at a cost.  Now, it is possible that the cost is worth the
"benefit".  There is a *great* cost, in my mind, in re-defining
the family unit.  I've expressed what I believe are some of the
consequences of this.  We disagree.

Collis

Jesus expands the definition of family by defining his family:

   "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived.  They stood outside the
house and sent in a message, asking for him.  A crowd was sitting
Jesus, and they said to him, "Look, your mother and your brothers
and sisters are outside, and they want you."

    Jesus answered, "Who is my mother?  Who are my brothers?  Whoever
does what God wants him to do is my brother, my sister, my mother."

    Mark 3.31-35 TEV (parallels Matthew 12.46-50 and Luke 8.19-21)

Peace,
Richard

    Haven't done the reasearch, but it also occurred to me that an OT
    family often included more than one wife, with or without a harem,
    too.  And brothers were supposed to impregnate their childless,
    windowed sisters-in-law to carry on their brother's seed.... It made me
    wonder just how "biblical" is our idea of the nuclear family...
    
    I was also thinking about my feelings about my extended family and how
    I would "do extra" for a cousin in need.  There's some kind of
    special connectedness there for me (partly because I have no siblings), 
    and I would consider it almost a requiremtns, too -- as a means of
    honoring our mutual grandparents.  Oops -- sorry for the sidetrack
    here! 
    
    Nancy

    In the Acts of the Apostles, briefly they lived together as a large
    community, with everything held as possessed by all and shared by
    all... nice description of a family?
    
    I can remember at a meeting in a church I once went to the youth group
    leader told us a marriage without christ wasn't a marriage. Someone
    asked him how this could be since there were plenty of examples of good
    marriages without christ. His reaction was "see me afterwards if you
    don't understand why you're wrong".
    
    Whenever I heard the word family and christ mentioned, I have this
    vision of a machine pressing out families in a mould - mother, father,
    children. Every now and then the machine goes wrong and the press
    destroys something that didn't quite fit the mould...
    
    Pete.

    We are all children of God, so therefor we are all brothers and sisters
    of the same family.