Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

                       * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

(HELEN THOMAS, UPI White House Reporter)
Subject: Bush campaign to tone down emphasis on family values

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Republican officials denied Thursday that the
issue of ``family values'' is being put on the back burner but
acknowledged the heavy campaign focus will be on the recessionary
economy.
	The question of the Bush campaign playing down ``family values''
arose when Charles Black, senior political adviser to President Bush on
the re-election committee, indicated the president and his surrogates
will focus their primary attention on the economy.
	``Family values'' as an issue got its biggest ride at the Republican
National Convention in Houston last week, with a special night was set
aside for the party to promote its version of what the phrase meant.
	Some political observers do not believe the ``family values''
flagship is playing as well as the presdient's campaign operatives had
expected.
	In speeches in the Midwest Thursday, Bush concentrated on the
economic security by boosting exports and expanding trade to wipe out
the remnants of the recession.
	In a radio interview on a midwestern campaign swing Thursday, Bush
said that ``family values'' is ``not a slogan. It's the heartbeat of
the country.''
	But it was rather a toning down of the issue, rather than eliminating
it from the campaign liturgy, and one campaign aide broadened the
interperetation to include health care, child care and the economy,
claiming they were family oriented programs.
	Vice President Dan Quayle told reporters Thursday:
	``The president and I view family values as an important issue. We
have a different viewpoint from the Democrats. It's not whether you're
for family values or against family values. The question is the
approach...how do we go about strengthening families.''
	He said legislation such as bills dealing with lower taxes,
education, parental choice, crime prevention and health care all fall
into the category of ``family values.''
	``We have a substantive policy difference'' with Democratic opponent
Bill Clinton's campaign, he said. ``I tell you this is going to be a
major issue in the campaign.''
	White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater took the same approach,
saying, ``We'll continue to talk about family values. The real
significance is the way the two parties look at policies related to
family values.''
	He cited crime legislation and programs for home ownership.
	``I think it's a valid issue and it defines the differences between
the two parties,'' he said. ``People care about it.''
	Both Quayle and Fitzwater disavowed the linking by House Republican
whip Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., of the lifestyle of Woody Allen to the
Democrats.

   Family values capmpaign is the 1992 version of the Willie Horton
   case.  They are trying this time to create a prototypical bad guy
   for everyone to blame their problem(s) on.  Needless to say I feel
   it's just another target to absolve the current adminstration (I
   do mean everyone not oly the republicans) of responsability.
   Nothing happend because neither side wanted it to.

   It's hard to have the family values they esposed, the stuff of
   Leave it to Beaver, then again there was father knows best, a 
   single parent.  The good old days were really not so good and 
   getting very old.  Nostalga has always been better than reality,
   I know, my older brother was born in '44 and I was '53.  It was 
   the two girls between me and my brother that died in late pregnancy
   due to something that was solved in 1962, RH factor.  I remember duck
   and cover, hiding in the halls of the schools in case ICBMs deliver
   the BOMB.  It was real good.

   I thought not.  Real family values start here and now, this minute.
   Moses, Christ all had a lot to say about family values, most applies
   because it's valid in any religion.  Love thy neighbor, doesn't mean
   picking whom they shall be first.  They were talking about whoever
   was next to you that moment, no if's, ands, or maybe.  It's also
   based on knowledge, even the Bible acknowledges that as the greatest
   treasure.  It is knowledge in its entirety, the good and the bad that
   we make our choices from.  Yes, even Ward and June were educated.  There 
   are many things we cannot avoid, ignorance though we encounter it too
   often is fortunatly very curable.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Family values, it seems to me, is one of those wonderful phrases
    that means what ever the speaker wants it to mean. At least to the
    speaker. I suspect that there are over 240,000,000 definitions of
    family values in the US alone. I doubt that even George and Barbara
    Bush would agree on just what it means. The whole thing is silly to
    me. A smoke screen, by many sides, to avoid addressing real issues.

    		Alfred

    Alfred ... in my estimation you are 100% correct.

    When *I* think of "traditional family values" I can only relate to that
    which I experienced.  Yes, there is no doubt but that those values are
    rapidly disappearing .. yes I believe that it is detrimental to the
    country as a whole .. yes I would like to see somewhat of a return to
    those values ... no .. I haven't the foggiest idea in the world as to
    *how* to do it.  Neither do the Republicans.  Neither do the Democrats.
    Anyone who thinks that the Democrats or the Republicans do know how ..
    well .. they're dreaming.
    
    There are MANY diffenent kinds of "families" - BUT - It seems as though
    the traditional family of a (male) father and (female) mother, a few
    kids, mortgage, go to church on Sunday, good community citizens, know
    and visit and support your neighbors, don't sue at the drop of a hat, 
    don't hold your hand out to the 'government' everytime something
    doesn't go the way you think that it should .. and on and on and on.
    
    I to would like to see a return to RESPECT for the traditional family.
    
    Now, please, before the PC croud jumps down my back ... I said that
    there are "many" different types of families and each and every one of
    them is OK, fine, great, wonderful, etc ... please don't give me a
    ration about single parents and children out of wedlock.  A family, as
    Barbara Bush said, "is whatever you define it to be".
    
    Everyone has "values" and there will be a vast canyon between two
    people.  Personally, I think that Bill Clinton is the worst kind of
    slime for avoiding the draft as he did .. others may think that he is a
    hero for doing so ... 

    It's, as Alfred said, one big smoke screen.

    Bubba

re Note 513.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	Then there is the issue of abortion.  Do abortions result from a lack
> of family values?
  
        Well, I would say "yes", but I probably don't mean the same
        thing by "family values" as the typical politician.

        From my Christian perspective, God is love, God has created
        us as a family and wishes us to live as a family.  God has
        given and continues to give us (humanity) all the resources
        necessary to cope with life's problems.  God has given to all
        of us an obligation to care for all members of the human
        family in need (obviously, we all have differing abilities to
        express that care for each member of that family).

        We fail to have family values when we fail, as individuals,
        as nuclear families, and as societies, to live by the above.

        Surely the vast majority of abortions arise from people who
        are in fear or people who rightly anticipate the scorn or
        rejection or non-support of others, people whose fears could
        be relieved if the members of the human family around them
        truly lived lives of caring love.

        Bob

    RE: Alfred,
    
    			I agree with you.  I hate the thought of thinking
    someone is being dishonest but this election has really elicited that
    response from me.  
    
    Dave

    
    Believe it or not "family values" are identifiable.  Family values are
    the values that nourish and support our families.  Government's role is
    large.  Government either supports these values in its laws and policy
    or it does not.  One way it does not support these values is to attempt
    to become the family.  It is impossible for one thing and the costs are
    staggering to all people.  We pay trillions for something that does not
    work because it is a fundamentally flawed idea. 
    
    Every one of our problems are the direct result of our rebellion
    against God and his laws.  Our immorality as a nation is our primary
    problem.  As we move from the Judeo Christian context to the humanist
    context we are certain to continue our decay and to experience untold
    misery.  But if we repent as a nation (unlikely until we've hit the
    bottom, I think) we can be restored by God.  This is why it is so
    important that Christians be in public office - so that our laws
    reflect Judeo Christian values.  And yes this means that homosexuals
    will not be given special rights beyond what all Americans enjoy in our
    Bill of Rights and our Constituion.
    
    By the way, 60% of our population lives in a traditional family setting.
    
    jeff

    
<    Every one of our problems are the direct result of our rebellion
<    against God and his laws.  Our immorality as a nation is our primary
<    problem.  As we move from the Judeo Christian context to the humanist
<    context we are certain to continue our decay and to experience untold
<    misery.  But if we repent as a nation (unlikely until we've hit the
<    bottom, I think) we can be restored by God.  This is why it is so
<    important that Christians be in public office - so that our laws
<    reflect Judeo Christian values.  And yes this means that homosexuals
<    will not be given special rights beyond what all Americans enjoy in our
<    Bill of Rights and our Constituion.

   I keep hearing about values, I also hear different things from
   different people.  Part of what I wrote earlier was a not to subtle
   question, and it is nebulus at best.  It is clear we need basic values,
   what they should be is a constant source of confusion and debate.

   I'm all for giving no one special rights over another.  That also means
   insuring everyone has access to the same rights, with no exceptions.
    
<    By the way, 60% of our population lives in a traditional family setting.

   It's my understanding that the census takers say it's closer to 25%.
   It's possible were are talking about two different things.  What is
   your traditional setting? 

   Peace,
   Allison

.7> Our immorality as a nation is our primary problem.

Jeff .. ol' buddy .. hep' me out on this one ...

I'm having trouble identifying "our immorality as a nation" .. could you
(please) elaborate on this.  How are we, as a nation, immoral?

.7> This is why it is so important that Christians be in public office -
.7> so that our laws reflect Judeo Christian values.

Boy .. I bet our fellow Americans who are Hindu, Buddhist .. would really
look forward to this!

JFK was a slut ... LBJ was blind ... Carter was a fool .. Clinton is
all three ... but they're "good Christians" ... Tell me, just *who*
did you have in mind for public office?  The only real Christian(s)
that I would vote for under your banner is ... Billy Graham ... and
Alfred Thompson.

.7> And yes this means that homosexuals will not be given special rights
.7> beyond what all Americans enjoy in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

Nothing wrong with that.  Good idea.

Bubba

	I've always had trouble with the characterization of the US as a
	Christian nation. Perhaps it's because of my narrow opinion of what
	a Christian is. But when I contrast the US with Israel I think I'm
	right in not calling the US a Christian nation. Israel, at least during
	my visits some 14&15 years ago, was (I assume still is) a Jewish
	nation. The laws and attitudes of most people reflect this. Even with
	a large Moslem population and a lot more freedom and access to politics
	then the US press gives credit for Israel is clearly governed by Jewish
	principles. Just look at the strict laws around food service. Or try
	and shop from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Other examples abound.

	The US can never be a Christian nation. It would stop being the US as
	we know it or the founders invisioned it.

	There is a lot of immorality in the US. Though because of the diversity
	of the place one persons morality is an other persons imorality. This
	will always be the case. Case of proplems? Sure, not doubt about it.
	Primary problem? Not a chance. The primary problem is a lack of 
	searching for common ground and for building a society on things held
	in common.

	Family values is a good example. As I said earlier, this means what 
	each person says it means. But we could at least search for the things
	that most of us have in common. For example, are single parent families
	bad? I hope not. My wife and I were both raised in single parent 
	families. Some people think they are bad. Other think that they can
	be good but dual parent families are better. Perhaps their is some
	common ground and we can get people to agree that single parent families
	need help, and should get it, and that dual parent families should be
	encouraged and helped to stay together. (If even, for a cynic, to avoid 
	having to pay for assistance more costly assistance to single parent
	families.) That's just off the top of my head but the point is that
	common values can be found if we avoid doing so by labeling everything.

.7> This is why it is so important that Christians be in public office -
.7> so that our laws reflect Judeo Christian values.

	I agree that it is important that Christians be in public office. But
	not with the why. I believe Christians are called to public service to
	protect the weak, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and house the 
	homeless. And many other things. Though I really believe this job
	belongs with the church rather than government, government seems to be
	the place this sort of thing gets done. Government needs to be run by
	people who care about people. Christians should be, though may not always
	be, that sort of person.

>JFK was a slut ... LBJ was blind ... Carter was a fool .. Clinton is
>all three ... but they're "good Christians" ... Tell me, just *who*
>did you have in mind for public office?  The only real Christian(s)
>that I would vote for under your banner is ... Billy Graham ... and
>Alfred Thompson.

	I'm afraid I'm a fool too. Or at least enough of one not to make a
	good President. Though smart enough to be Vice President. Then again
	I've long believe that no one smart enough to be a good president was
	fool enough to take the job.

			Alfred

    This "family values" garbage from the Bush administration is pure
    hypocricy.  The administration has opposed government measures that
    would help the family, such as maternity leave (mandated in every other
    industrialized country), WIC (a highly successful program of maternal
    and child nutrition) and Headstart (which has an excellent track
    record.)
    
    My analysis?  This administration runs purely on one value.  And that
    value is called:
    
     
    
    Short Term Profits.  
    
    Programs like WIC and Headstart support family values like child
    nutrition and getting kids off to a good start in school.  The
    government saves money on these programs but will pay in the long run
    for mentally defective and educationally deprived adults.  But hey,
    who's worried about 20 years from now?  Take the money and run.  That's
    the key.  Salt it away in a Swiss bank account and who cares if the
    U.S. deteriorates.  The wealthy can go live somewhere else on their
    well-protected trust funds.  And leave the rest of us in the rubble.
    
    For the supreme example of the holy value of Short Term Profits, look
    at this administration's (and Clinton's, to be fair) inability to face
    the awful specter of the budget deficit.  My family values include
    providing financially for my children's future.  The budget deficit and
    the ailing economy directly affect my ability to provide for my family
    in the long term.
    
    I think Reagan and Bush are just posturing at being righteous
    Christians.  Where the rubber meets the road, the values they trumpet
    are just noise.
    
    Further, I think that by explicitly singling out homosexuals, they are
    practicing a trusty political technique, divide and conquer.  This is a
    straw man and a diversionary tactic.  The real issues are elsewhere. 
    Just look in your wallet.
    
    L

Hi Laura,

It sounds to me that your confusing "values" with implementation.

Simply because President Bush recommends different ways of
accomplishing some objectives does not mean that he doesn't
have the values that you so cherish.

You cited the required maternity leave as a "family value".
I think that there are serious tradeoffs with the expectations
on businesses in this legislation.  It is (in my mind) clearly
not a black or white for or against the family.  I'm not
familiar with your other two examples and so cannot comment
on them.

The issue here may well be, what should the role of government
be?  Should people look to the ferderal government in our
society?  Or should they look elsewhere?  I think that this
may be the real issue that you are complaining about.  People
with the same values can have very different views on that
question.

Collis

re Note 513.12 by TNPUBS::STEINHART:

        I thought that Headstart had actually been expanded under the
        Bush administration?

    RE:  .12
    
    Not being argumentative, just trying to clear something up:
    
    I didn't confuse implementation with values.  I said, "The 
    administration has opposed government measures that would help the
    family, such as ..."
    
    The role of the President is a combination of implementation (working
    with Congress, the military and government agencies) and the
    articulation of national goals and values.
    
    I think in this case the administration's stated values are at odds
    with its implementation of programs.  Therefore, I judge the
    administration to be hypocritical.  Can you point to any way that the
    administration has helped families, in reality aside from rhetoric?
    
    In fact, the administration's divisive rhetoric itself hurts many
    families.  For instance, every gay man or lesbian comes from a family. 
    They are somebody's daughters, sons, siblings, and cousins.  In many
    cases they are somebody's parent, too.  How does the administration's
    rhetoric help strengthen THESE families?  Given that gay men and
    lesbians are estimated to be about 5 percent of the population, many if
    not most American families are hurt by these divisive tactics.
    
    In my family, the poor economy is the number one national issue that
    affects us.  I'm talking job loss, hard times starting a business, fear
    of loss of income, fear of loss of health benefits, more money going
    for taxes with less benefit coming back.  Just look in your own life.
    
    Talk is cheap.  Action counts.
    
    L

    I believe that the *best* family configuration in which to bring up
    children is a family that consists of a mother and a father who love
    and respect each other, who are committed to each other and each
    other's personal growth and development for life, and who provide an 
    environment of love, discipline, respect, and other attributes that 
    foster personal growth for the children.  (The reason I think that the 
    ideal family includes both genders is to provide the relationships 
    through which all children in the family can learn to relate to both 
    genders easily.)
    
    For me, it is also essential for the family to be a single economic
    unit -- which has nothing to do with whether or not the mother works!
    -- but I recognize that others do not feel that is necessary.  To me, 
    changing from "I" to "we" in terms of money is a key indication of your 
    commitment to the relationship.  But I digress...
    
    I also believe that families that do not match this configuration can
    nevertheless be excellent families in which to bring up children, that 
    a family does not have to include children in its configuration, and
    that same-sex committed relationships are also families (with or
    without children).
    
    Nancy
    
    

Note 513.15
    
  >I think in this case the administration's stated values are at odds
  >with its implementation of programs.

The problem is that it is an unstated assumption that the government
putting a particular program into is the *best* way to help the family.
Many believe that the best way to help the family is *not* to put a
governmental program into place - even a program that does help some
families in some ways.  All programs cost money which comes out of
the pockets of families.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Again, it is
clear that you do not like the choices of implementation; it is far
from clear that you have presented a good case that Bush is not for
family values.

  >Can you point to any way that the administration has helped 
  >families, in reality aside from rhetoric?

I believe it is strongly pro-family to:
 - maintain the current (and long-time existing) social structure of the 
   family (which some want to significantly modify)
 - protect the unborn from being killed
 - acknowledge the authority that parents have over their children

The ABC bill for child care is, in my opinion, a *very* bad anti-family
bill that Democrats (in general) were pushing and Republicans (in general)
were against.  Other alternatives (keeping the government out of the
day care business *and* allowing children to be sent to centers where
the religious beliefs of the parents could be not only protected but
supported) were possible.  This, in my opinion, was a very family
related issue.  

Keep government out of the family!  There's already too much
governmental influence.  Don't penalize me for wanting to send my
child to a school that teaches Christian values (which the government
currently does).  If government must (which it shouldn't) force
religious activity out of "public" functions, then don't force my
support for public functions in lieu of private functions which *can*
share my values.  Again, if government didn't get involved in so many 
areas, then *family* values (as opposed to government values or 
society values) would be stronger.

  >In my family, the poor economy is the number one national issue that
  >affects us.

I've always believed that the government should not be in charge of
the economy.  For one thing, usually it can only mess it up; rarely
can it bring it to life.  For another, that is not the purpose of
government.  I freely admit that I'm in a minority in this belief.

  >Talk is cheap.  Action counts.
    
Putting the burden on government is not necessarily wise action, in
my opinion.

Collis

    Just a note with regard to "actions and not words".
    
    I'm pretty much into the best government is the least government.
    This year, I'm voting libertarian....Bush and Clinton, to me, are
    the same.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 513.17 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >I think in this case the administration's stated values are at odds
>   >with its implementation of programs.
> 
> The problem is that it is an unstated assumption that the government
> putting a particular program into is the *best* way to help the family.
> Many believe that the best way to help the family is *not* to put a
> governmental program into place - even a program that does help some
> families in some ways.  All programs cost money which comes out of
> the pockets of families.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Again, it is
> clear that you do not like the choices of implementation; it is far
> from clear that you have presented a good case that Bush is not for
> family values.
  
        I personally find a pure marketplace approach to family
        values (i.e., let families keep as much of their pay and the
        "invisible hand" of the marketplace will solve all problems
        better than any program which includes government action) to
        be, in George Bush's eloquent phrase, "voodoo economics".

        Hard as it may be for some conservatives to believe, most
        liberals do not believe that the government should solve all
        problems, or that government programs, when applied, are
        capable of being the total solution to problems.

        Rather, the liberals I know take the approach that when it is
        evident that government can play an effective role as part of
        the solution of common problems, then it may be prudent for
        government to do so.  (Many conservatives today seem to take
        the position that anything that government does is
        inefficient, ineffective, ill-directed, or tyrannical, as
        opposed to the view that anything the "marketplace" does is
        fair, efficient, and respectful of personal freedoms.)

        In other words, the most effective solutions are likely to be
        combinations of government and private action.  In some
        areas, the balance tends to more government, e.g., defense,
        and in other areas more emphasis should be on private action.

        The U.S. happens to have one of the lowest tax rates of the
        big industrial nations.  Those nations that are out-competing
        with us in the international markets, and which have lower
        infant mortality rates, and better educational performance
        are also nations whose citizens pay more of their paycheck in
        taxes.

        The level of taxation isn't the problem -- and neither higher
        nor lower taxes are the solution -- it's what we do (or don't
        do) with those taxes that sets us apart from those other
        nations.

        Bob

    It would be informative for each of us to state what "family values" we
    believe we hold.  That would shed a lot of light on a more impersonal
    political debate.  I'll share mine.  They are strongly influenced by my
    religion (Judaism), my sex, and my family history.
    
    I share this not to debate with anyone, as these are highly personal. 
    But I think you would find them interesting, and I'd like to know
    yours.  Not just the formal stuff, but the hidden operating assumptions
    that make us tick.
    
    I believe in keeping the family together.  This is a particular
    responsibility for me as a woman.  The women in my family stand up
    against the fragmenting forces of modern life.  We maintain regular
    contact between family members by phone calls, greeting cards, and
    visits when possible.
    
    I believe in providing for my family.  I feel this responsibility just
    as keenly as if I were a man.  I must assure that our material needs
    are met.
    
    I believe in supporting community organizations, such as synagogue,
    that provide us with social, spiritual, and material forms of support
    and assistance.  I give money and time to make this happen.
    
    I believe in providing my children with food, shelter, clothing, and
    other material needs.  
    
    I believe in providing them with a solid religious education and
    upbringing.  I believe in paying for their education through at least
    high school, and helping them as much as possible with secondary
    education and vocational training.  
    
    I believe in planning for their financial futures through savings, a
    legal will and guardianship, and any other means necessary.  
    
    I believe in providing my children with adequate medical care.
    
    I believe in spending quality time with my children.
    
    I believe in the sanctity of my marriage ties.  I hang in there through
    good times and bad and do everything humanly possible to make it work. 
    
    I'm sure I could add more, but I gotta go to aerobics class.  I believe
    in maintaining my health and vitality!
    
    What makes you tick?
    
    L
    
    

Laura,

	Allow me to share an additional thought.

	To me *real* family values must start with commitment.  I get the
sense that too many times in modern relationships, one or both partners are
altogether too unhesitant to bail out when the going gets rough.  Couples
seems to start out with a contingency plan in mind, an escape route "just
in case it doesn't work out."  I suspect this might covertly and unintendedly
sabotage the relationship.

	I've heard that being in a commited relationship, a marriage, is like
being in a pressure cooker; if you are able to withstand it, you'll come out
a lot more tender. :-)  [Please note, I'm not talking about violence, here.
I would discourage anyone from remaining in a violent situation.]

	Therefore, in order to reinforce the family, society must endorse,
honor and demonstrate support for committed relationships between couples who
are in it for the duration, that is to say, for life.

Peace,
Richard

>	Therefore, in order to reinforce the family, society must endorse,
>honor and demonstrate support for committed relationships between couples who
>are in it for the duration, that is to say, for life.
    
    How should society do this? 
    
    			Alfred

Good question, Alfred .22.

I wish I had the definitive answer, but I don't.

I think it's a good thing to talk about, to get people to think about, to
get people to struggle with.

We might start asking couples who are considering uniting their lives what
it means to them to live in covenant; in commited relationship.

Peace,
Richard

A few years ago I took a course at UCCS entitled, "Sociology of Family."
Our first assignment was to write a definition of family.  The results
indicated that while none of our definitions were wrong, none were absolutely
right either.

The legal system has tried to define a family as an economic unit.  Religions
have tried to define a family in terms of kinship by virtue of blood or
marriage, and sometimes formal adoption.  A friend of mine asserts that,
"Love makes a family.  Nothing less, nothing else."  I would like to agree
with her, but I've seen too many families that are bound together by bitterness
and shame, and that possibly have been that way for generations.  Sad, but true.

Of course, the people espousing family values are not promoting the values
of dysfunctional and codependant families.  At least, they don't think they
are.

Peace,
Richard

A family is one of the three "institutions" ordained by
God (along with the church and government).  The Bible
is full of the responsibilities of families:

  - education of children!
    - moral values
    - religious beliefs
    - teaching love by word and example (handling 
      relationships)
    - less focus on general education
    - teaching discipline
  - parents responsible for child's welfare
  - husband and wife responsible to put *each other*
    (not the children!) first
  - husband responsible to be the spiritual leader
  - all responsible for submitting to God

There's much more, but that's a starting point.

Collis

Re:  .24

  >Of course, the people espousing family values are not promoting the
  >values of dysfunctional and codependant families.

I recently made a copy of a cartoon.  It shows a large auditoriam
with two people sitting it in (not next to each other) with a
large banner proclaiming "Welcome - ACONP Convention (Adult Children
Of Normal Parents).  The point is, all people (read families) have their 
problems with sin ranking right up there.  In my family, all three of
us dropped out of college (I flunked out), one of us went on wild
spending sprees and constantly lives in debt, one of us married young
to escape parents and ended up divorcing, etc., etc.  Problems will
happen.  But we can *still* come together as a family and love and
support each other - primarily because my parents are in a loving
committed relationship with each other and their children.  I'm just
starting to see the impact of divorce - which does *not* end with
the child grows up.  It only means that not only does the grown
child need to deal with divorce, but the spouse and grandchildren
need to as well.

Given that this is the case, how should we deal with individuals
who are part of a family structure and or dysfunctional and codependent?
Will breaking up the family solve their problems?  How will it
impact other family members (particularly children)?

There are not easy answers.  There are answers that come easily,
but they do not reflect the difficulty of implementing them.  In
any case, severing relationships is rarely a healthy positive
thing when viewing the whole.  For one thing, it makes establishing
a lifetime relationship again a much more difficult process.

Enough rambling for now.

Collis

        We would all agree that the family is, or ideally should be,
        a rather closely-knit grouping of people.

        It is interesting to observe that, unlike popular culture,
        the Bible does not define all humankind or even the church as
        a family.  Does this mean that we do not have family
        responsibilities to others in the world?  Possibly, but
        consider what the Bible does say.

        The Bible describes the church, the collection of all
        followers of Christ, not as a family but as a BODY.  The
        elements of a body are, if anything, far more closely
        interdependent and interrelated than the members of a family.

        Our responsibility towards other members of the Christian
        body, and I would argue this extends to ALL for whom Christ
        came, lived, and died, is far greater than our normal concept
        of family responsibility.

        Bob

Hi Collis (.26),

I like your cartoon! ;')  I think Bradshaw has the figure around 80% 
of American families are in some way dysfunctional.  I believe 
families need to heal and in order to do so have to take a hard look 
at themselves as individuals and as a family to discover how they can 
become whole.

<<happen.  But we can *still* come together as a family and love and
<<support each other - primarily because my parents are in a loving
<<committed relationship with each other and their children.  I'm just

That's true for you and perhaps the majority, but in some families it 
is not possible until work has been done.  When one member of a family 
is so unhealthy, that they keep the family in a state of chaos it can 
be healthier for the family to separate so that at least those who 
want to work on themselves have the space to do that.

<<starting to see the impact of divorce - which does *not* end with
<<the child grows up.  It only means that not only does the grown
<<child need to deal with divorce, but the spouse and grandchildren
<<need to as well.

I agree, each member is impacted.  However, they can be more severely 
impacted remaining in a situation that harms them physically and/or 
psychologically.

<<Given that this is the case, how should we deal with individuals
<<who are part of a family structure and or dysfunctional and codependent?
<<Will breaking up the family solve their problems?  How will it
<<impact other family members (particularly children)?

From personal experience, I believe it gives the children a safe 
healthy place where they can then work on their own healing and with 
counseling, love, and support learn to love themselves and forgive and 
love the dysfunctional/codependent parent(s) in turn.

<<any case, severing relationships is rarely a healthy positive
<<thing when viewing the whole.  For one thing, it makes establishing
<<a lifetime relationship again a much more difficult process.

Sometimes the dysfunctional person needs to hit bottom before they 
take responsibility for their lives.  Unfortunately, sometimes they 
have to lose their family before they realize what their illness has 
done to the rest of the family.  I believe in some cases it is the 
healthiest thing to do, because when the children/and other members 
of the family are distanced from the one who isn't ready to heal, it 
gives those who are the chance to do so and thus gives the whole 
family a chance to eventually heal.

Collis, thank you for sharing a bit of your personal family 
experience.  I invited my exhusband (the father of my children) to my 
wedding because he has been my friend since we were 12 years old and 
will always be family to me.  He danced with me and we cried together, 
I think both knowing that the healing had been complete and that what 
remains is love.  He called the next day to thank me and Don for 
inviting him to share in the joy of the day.  Unconventional perhaps, 
but I think when we bring God into our hearts, this type of love and 
healing is possible.  It was also healing for my children to know there 
    is an unconditional love that exists for all of us and to have
    the opportunity to be (and dance and sing) with both parents that day!

    Ro Reinke

                       * For Internal Use Only *

Subj: Phyllis Schlafly's son is gay.

	ALTON, Ill. (UPI) -- The son of conservative activist Phyllis
Schlafly, an ardent opponent of gay rights, Friday confirmed he is a
homosexual.
	John Schlafly, 41, disclosed his homosexuality in a copyrighted
interview published Friday in the San Francisco Examiner. His mother
later characterized the ensuing media attention a ``feeding frenzy.''
	The attorney, who lives and works with his mother in the Southern
Illinois community just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis,
defended Phyllis Schlafly although he said he disagrees with some of her
opinions.
	``I hold my mother and her work in very high esteem,'' he said.
	Phyllis Schlafly is best known for her staunch opposition to the
Equal Rights Amendment for women, homosexual rights and sex education in
schools.
	The founder of the conservative Eagle Forum and a major conservative
force in GOP politics since the 1960s described media attention to her
son's homosexuality a ``feeding frenzy.''
	``I do know he is supportive of family values and of the Republican
platform in general and of my work,'' she said.
	``The initial story which tried to say that he had somehow initiated
an attack on the platform was a complete lie,'' she told United Press
International in an interview from the home she and her firstborn share.
	John Schlafly confirmed he is homosexual but refused to divulge how
long his mother has known about it. He said the initial public release
of that fact was about two weeks ago in the New York magazine QW.
	``I thought it would have just been let alone by the reponsible
media. But no. Several news organizations were working on the story
during the last week with the idea of trying to show there was some kind
of hypocrisy going on and some coverup. I really think that was
misrepresentation so that's why I agreed to the Examiner interview.
	``I support the conservative position on most issues. I generally
vote Republican. I'm generally comfortable with the idea of family
values. The conservatives who were accused and portrayed at the
Republican convention as gay bashers -- the truth of the matter is most
of them are very highly motivated people who are sincerely trying to
create a better world. I think they've been unfairly castigated by the
media and the Democrats.''
	Phyllis Schlafly said her son does not work for the Eagle Forum but
as a laywer does some legal work for her. She also declined to say how
long she has known he is a homosexual.
	``I love my son. Your children do not always do what you want them
to. I have six children....I'm not going to run their lives but I love
them all,'' she said.
	``I think this attack by the media is political because, frankly, I
made them look foolish,'' she said, noting media predictions of a very
divisive GOP convention and an anticipated floor fight on abortion
rights failed to materialize.
	Son John said he doubted it was a coordinated attack by the media but
did attribute the spread of the story to attempts to sell magazines. He
said he has no doubt it is politically motivated.
	``Most Americans and, really, most conservatives and, really, most of
people who sometimes are called the religious right are willing to grant
that gays and lesbians have all the same rights as all other Americans
have. But they just object to certain legislative proposals put forward
by parts of the national gay rights lobby, which seeks to establish some
kind of special recognition or special privilege.
	``I don't see it as a threat to minorities or people who choose to
live a single life or who are gays or lesbians,'' he said.
	In the Examiner interview, he took issue with Vice President Dan
Quayle's recent statement that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Schlafly said his sexual inclination was as natural to him as the fact
that he is right-handed.
	In the newspaper story, he called for the repeal of laws that
discriminate against homosexuals.
	He also echoed Rodney King's statement following the Los Angeles
riots.
	``Can't we all just get along?'' he told the Examiner. ``Can't we
just make a little more of an effort to understand the other side and
turn down the hostility level?''
	He refused comment to UPI about his lifestyle.
	``I have not made any comment about my own sex life or any details
about it. I think it's private and it's not anyone's business. I'm not a
public figure....I just don't want to talk about it,'' he said.

--

    re: .29
    
    Since this is a UPI story, why is it marked "For Internal Use Only?"

Because our agreement with UPI does not permit UPI articles be distributed
to anyone not covered by the agreement.  The "for internal use only" should
really explain that.

/john

	150 gay and lesbian parents meeting in Indianapolis were asked,
"What values does your family treasure?"

	Answers included:
		Telling the truth
		Enjoying mealtimes together
		Talking and listening to each other
		Trying your best
		Laughing

	But the runaway winner was LOVE! - "Unconditional love," "Hugs and
kisses," "Showing affection," and more.  The top ten answers when categorized:

	1.  Love
	2.  Honesty
	3.  Support
	4.  Trust
	5.  Education
	6.  Communication
	7.  Acceptance
	8.  Sharing
	9.  Respect
       10.  Faith

	These qualities are what make a family.  Not gender.  Not number of
parents.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 513.32 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	But the runaway winner was LOVE! - "Unconditional love," "Hugs and
> kisses," "Showing affection," and more.  The top ten answers when categorized:
  
        Just this past week, our 10-year-old daughter had an
        assignment to get her parents' definition of "love."  After
        thinking about it overnight, and after considering many
        detailed and expressive statements we might make, I just
        turned to Nancy and said:  "When I think of love, I think of
        'family' first and most of all."

Bob

Note 81.48

>Pres.
>Clinton is a number of years ahead of his time; in December,
>he said that former Vice-President Quayle had it right when
>he talked about single women intentionally getting pregnant.

Which only shows that even Dan Quayle couldn't get it wrong 100% of the time.

Most of these "women" are teenagers.  I put women in quotes because I consider
a woman to be a mature, adult female homo sapien.  I don't think of the average
14-to-19-year-old girl as being very mature.

Richard

  >Which only shows that even Dan Quayle couldn't get it wrong 100% of 
  >the time.

Funny, this isn't the message that was being spread 2 years ago
after Dan Quayle's throw-away line about Murphy Brown.  Perhaps
we're in agreement again that the tremendous amount of abuse
(from the media, primarily) thrown Dan Quayle's way was out of
line.

Collis

    No.  Most of what I've heard Quayle say was worthy of the "abuse."
    
    The clumsiness of Gerald Ford was exaggerated though, I think.
    
    Richard
    

Well, surveys at the time showed that 70% of the general
public was in agreement with what Dan Quayle said while
about 80% of the media coverage was negative.

You must have been part of the 30%.  :-)

    Yes.  Nixon also was elected twice to the office of President of
    the United States.  The majority is not always right, even though
    that's often what's been taught.
    
    Christianity worldwide is, I suspect, not even a majority religion.
    
    I guess we're drifting off the topic, eh?
    
    Richard

Note 91.3594

>    Now I've done
>    something in RESPONSE to a HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA being placed in my work
>    environment; accepting the redefinition of the family!  IN RESPONSE I
>    wrote my own letter to our personnel department explaining my pov.

I'm not impressed by the chronic use of cliches and catch-slogans.  Let's
have some evidence.  Give us your definition of a family and them let us how
Digital (your work environment) is trying to redefine it.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    I pass...  I said exactly what I meant and meant what I said!  You got
    an issue with it, live with it.

    .40
    
    	Ultimately, you said what you said whether it means anything or
    not.
    
    	It is very difficult to define a family.  Few families ever lived
    the Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, even in the '50s.
    
    Richard
    

	You know Nancy, in many different notes you have said things. When
people ask you to explain it you seem to say it can't be done. If you 
aren't gonna answer the questions so people will understand you, why don't 
you not make the statements?



Glen

    .42
    
    You know Glen in many different notes, you [insert whatever].
    
    I bet you could answer this question for me, couldn't you?

    I don't think broadening the definition is *exactly* the same as
    redefining a definition. Saying that the definition of a family is
    being redefined may be technically true, but it is not to the exclusion
    of what some might call the "traditional family."

    Single parents should be happy to note that the redefinition of the
    family is more inclusive of their lifestyles. Where the traditional
    family values would place a cloud over a divorc�, the redefined family
    is more inclusive. Where the traditional family values would pressure
    a widow or widower to remarry for the children's sake, the redefined
    family doesn't see a single parent family as a "broken" family. 

    Eric

| <<< Note 513.43 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| You know Glen in many different notes, you [insert whatever].
| I bet you could answer this question for me, couldn't you?

	Again you avoid it Nancy.... whatever....


Glen

    RE: .42
    
    That comment is out of line, Glen.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 513.46 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>




| That comment is out of line, Glen.


                                     
		WHY?

    RE: .47
    
    Because the reply by you is is argumentative and applies sweeping
    generalities. It has an "edge" to it, that is offensive.
    
    No, I will not define offensive. No, I will not define sweeping.
    No, I will not define "edge". Take the comment as is.....
    
    Marc H.

    Glen, Nancy and Marc,
    
    	Please discuss issues about discussing, noting style, etc., in
    Topic 9, "The Processing Topic."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    >Single parents should be happy to note that the redefinition of the
    >family is more inclusive of their lifestyles. Where the traditional
    >family values would place a cloud over a divorc�, the redefined
    >family is more inclusive. Where the traditional family values would
    >pressure a widow or widower to remarry for the children's sake, the
    >redefined family doesn't see a single parent family as a "broken" family.
    
    
    A broken family due to divorce or death is still family.  If by God's
    laws you have not been defined to procreate together, then you cannot
    be a family.. imho.
    
    I'm a single parent and I have to tell you, only my selfish PRIDE would
    make me want to deny the fact that single parenting is not natural and
    it is NOT the right way to parent.  I am a BROKEN family unit and it is
    in desperate need of EMERGENCY AID.  
    
    I'll admit it.  I cannot be both father and mother... I cannot provide
    everything my children need from their parents...
    
    And likewise homosexual couples cannot by themselves alone be parents. 
    They can parent each other's children from hetero or bi relationships,
    but they themselves cannot give birth.  As a matter of fact, this
    lifestyle, imho is ANTI-FAMILY.
    
    

    Hmmmm.  I always thought the most important criteria for being good
    parents was measured in terms of love or caring or the desire and
    ability to provide a good home for a child.
    
    Certainly, not all gay couples would make superb parents.  It is also
    well established that a couple's heterosexual orientation guarantees
    nothing about how well they'll parent, either.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    
    Re.50
    
    There is a much larger idea in Hinduism that apparently does not exist
    in Christianity, and that is:
    
    	Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam - the whole world is one family
    
    Too bad. 
    
    Cindy

    The whole world is related in the sense that we are all creations of
    God and in his image.  However, we also know about sibling rivarly,
    right?
    
    Being PARENTS and parenting are two different issues.  Oh boy this is
    going to fry some potatoes.  Morality is a big part of parenting.  The
    morality of same sex couples, IMHO-IMHO-IMHO discredits there ability
    to parent at all. 
    
    Now the rest of you can argue all you want about that statement.  I
    won't join the argument. I've stated it, I believe it and there's
    really nothing to discuss, I've already heard about all the "good
    parenting skills" of said same sex couples.  It's funny how morality
    doesn't creep into the discussion.  It seems its just on how you
    discipline and to some this is all that is important. I disagree.
    
    I believe the moral environment is what truly directs a child.  If
    immorality is demonstrated as moral, then IMHO this is not good
    parenting.  Let's take a look our moraless society today, eh?  Would
    any of you like to walk with me in East Palo Alto after dark, or for
    that matter how about the family city,Santa Clara?  It isn't safe any
    more.. 
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 513.50 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| And likewise homosexual couples cannot by themselves alone be parents.
| They can parent each other's children from hetero or bi relationships,
| but they themselves cannot give birth.  

	Nancy, if having each others kids defines family for you, then what of
all those people who adopt? They can't really be families, can they? Or those
who choose other means of having a baby, where one parent may not be the
father/mother? Are they too not considered family? You're wrong about this
Nancy. 

| As a matter of fact, this lifestyle, imho is ANTI-FAMILY.

	You can think this Nancy, but I would rather have a family where the
parents were gay and loving than straight and abusive.



Glen

| <<< Note 513.53 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Morality is a big part of parenting.  The morality of same sex couples, 
| IMHO-IMHO-IMHO discredits there ability to parent at all.

	Wow, and to think you believe this too... we all know that every single
oppisite sex family is based on morality. NOT! Nancy, something I wish you
would realize is that morality is subjective to each individual. Let's take one
example where your view differs from the Bible. You say a pastor can not drink.
That alcohol is the devils tool. Jesus drank wine. It says in the Bible that
one is not to get drunk, not that they can't drink. So your view differs from
the book you hold so dear. So should I worry when you say what you do? Nah.
Because this is not a world based on Nancy's thoughts. Will I get upset by what
you say? Yup.



Glen

 Geesh...I deleted one conference because of this nonsense, guess I'll
 have to delete another..





Jim

    re 513.50

     > A broken family due to divorce or death is still family.

    The newer, less judgmental definition of a family would not
    necessarily conclude that a divorced couple results in a "broken"
    family. Not knowing the particulars of your life, would you say that
    your family was better, less broken, when your ex-husband was living
    with you and your children? My experience is that people get divorced
    to fix a problem not to create one.

    > I'm a single parent and I have to tell you, only my selfish PRIDE would
    > make me want to deny the fact that single parenting is not natural and
    > it is NOT the right way to parent.  I am a BROKEN family unit and it is
    > in desperate need of EMERGENCY AID.

    I think you confuse the word 'natural' with 'easy'. Perhaps it is more
    natural for a family to have a mom, dad, and housekeeper... Like The
    Brady Bunch or Hazel. You'll get no argument from me that it's best for
    a family to be headed by a mom and dad who love each other and their
    children dearly. But that doesn't mean I think you should be out
    pounding the pavement looking for a husband.

    The traditional family is a woman, a man, and children spawned for said
    woman and man. The ideal family is one or more mature and loving adult
    role models (teachers and leaders) who love and respect each other and
    a group of children who are loved, wanted and guided.

    Any definition that puts the emphasis on gender composition and
    biological lineage of the family members, rather than the emotional and
    physical health, happiness, and possitive character of the children
    being raised in the family is ANTI-FAMILY... or at least anti child.
    
    	Eric                                 

    Glen, et.al., don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the
    answer.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 513.58 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Glen, et.al., don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.


	Go ahead Nancy. I really want to hear it.


Glen

I believe children should be brought up in a moral climate, also.

My children know that lying, cheating, stealing, killing and rape are wrong,
and not just because these things are against the law.

They know that love, kindness, and compassion are superior to coercion,
vengeance, and fear.  Well, they know it most of the time.  Even their
parents don't have these qualities down perfectly.

My children happen to have straight parents.  Would they have been worse
off if they'd been brought up under other circumstances?  A single parent
household?  By adoptive parents?  By other relatives?  By a gay couple?
Maybe.  Maybe not.

My youngest is going though his early teen years.  I can see him questioning
everything we, his parents, believe.  Normal?  Yes.  Difficult?  More than
anyone ever warned me.  And yet, I suspect it's even tougher on him.

Shalom,
Richard

    .61
    
    Living in a same sex environment is not truly familial as there is no
    way that these individuals *could* have produced the child together.
    
    This is immoral.

    >My children happen to have straight parents.  Would they have been worse
>off if they'd been brought up under other circumstances?  A single parent
>household?  By adoptive parents?  By other relatives?  By a gay couple?
>Maybe.  Maybe not.

    I was raised in a single parent home. I believe I would have been
    *much* better off in a two parent home. There are exceptions to
    2 being better then one but there is no doubt in my mind that 2
    loving parents are signifigantly better then 1 loving parent.

>My youngest is going though his early teen years.  I can see him questioning
>everything we, his parents, believe.  Normal?  Yes.  Difficult?  More than

    If it's any consolation, my son questions everything you believe as
    well. :-)

    Well, he does question some thing that I believe but not much. He
    questions a lot that his teachers are trying to teach him as well.
    Since he's in a Catholic school, must take Religion, and was raised
    by me he's got all sorts of questions for his teachers. He loved to
    sit with me at the computer looking up Bible passages to use in
    discussions. Like father, like son. :-)

    			Alfred

    nancy,
    
    this business about "immoral"...
    
    i understand that YOU believe that YOU absolutely and without
    any question have the answer to what is moral and what is not
    
    however, this carries about as much weight as stating that
    card-playing on Sunday is immoral (or dancing to rock'n'roll)
    
    in other words, it doesn't fit in with your customs but it
    means nothing in the ethical sense of the word and has no
    rational basis.
    
    peter

     RE: Note 513.61 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    What a ridiculous definition of "familial."

    Is a family composed of a sterile husband, a wife and adopted 
    children also immoral because there is no way the parents *could*
    have produced the children together?

    This nonsense of gay couples being "anti-family" or "against"
    the family, etc, etc, etc... has to stop.  It is grounded 
    completely in antagonism towards the private sexual acts of
    the parents and has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity
    of the people involved to love and support one another and to
    successfully raise, healthy, happy, *moral*, children.

    I won't quarrel with someone who suggests that, *all other
    things being equal*, a traditional family with a male and
    female parent is, or ought to be, the ideal.  But that doesn't
    mean all other family models are immoral.

    .61
    
    The ability to procreate does not guarantee a loving, moral family.
    Immoral is the household where the children are subject to cruelty,
    sexual violation, neglect, and a disregard for their physical,
    intellectual, emotional, and spiritual welfare.  You might find it
    difficult to believe, but this actually happens in households where
    the married mother and father are heterosexual.
    
    My sister-in-law and her husband cannot produce children for biological
    reasons.  But they are very good parents to their adopted son.  I guess
    this is not truly familial either, since there was no way these
    individuals could have produced a child together.  Oh, well.
    
    Richard
    

    > There are exceptions to 2 being better then one but there is no doubt
    > in my mind that 2 loving parents are signifigantly better then 1 loving
    > parent.

    I tend to agree, but the *key* word here is 'loving'. 

    A question for those who espouse two parent households: is it morally
    wrong for a single parent not to actively pursue remarriage?

    Eric 

    
    If a person feels that a homosexual definition of 'family' is immoral, 
    then *that* person should refrain from participating in such a household 
    and relationship.
    
    Beyond that though, it is none of their business what others do in
    their own households.
    
    Cindy

Note 513.62
    
>	                    -< not all kids rebel >-

So I hear.  As far as I can tell, it's a real crapshoot, this business of
children.  It's like they come with some programming already installed.
My son was a huggy, physical child from the day he was born.  My step-daughter
was fiercely independent right from the beginning.

Both of them have a stubborn streak a mile wide.  My wife and I just cannot
figure out where they inherited that particular characteristic from.  ;-}

Shalom,
Richard

    
    		Aw come on people.  Nancy answered a question that she had
    refrained from answering but Glen specifically asked for.  Now if you
    don't want an answer then *DON'T* ask the question.  Seems to me that
    ya'll are looking for an issue to get angry about.  You *KNOW* what her
    answer is going to be so why do you ask it?   This is very close to
    "baiting" and I think it needs to stop.   
    
    
    Dave

    The cognitive word is *could*�� in that they are the right sexes to
    procreate, sterility leaves what normally would have worked
    fruitless... but the *could* if sterility were not a factor is still
    valid, not true in same sex relationships.
    
    
    
    

    Yes, and pigs *could* fly if they had wings.  
    
    Your point is irrelevant to any moral or ethical
    questions regarding the parenting ability of same
    sex couples.   
    

    RE: .72
    
    Maybe...but, my opinion is that a homosexual "family" is wrong. 
    To me, it just isn't normal. I just don't believe that its right to
    have a child brought up in a same sex environment.
    
    When a child is in a family where one of the parents isn't there, do to
    divorce or death, the family structure is not whole, but, you can view
    it as a temperary situation. The parent can remarry. Not so with the
    homosexual arrangement.
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    >>To me, it just isn't normal. 
    
         This is a very key phrase.  To me it's very normal.  
    
         For some people it's normal to not want to be married at all, 
         or to not want to have children.  For me it's normal to want
         to spend my life with another man in a loving, monogamous
         relationship.
    
         It might be statistically out side the norm, but it's still
         normal -- for me.
    
            GJD

    ER: .74
    
    Yes indeed...the "normal" part is key. 
    
    I really can understand that to you, it is a normal feeling. I don't
    think for a moment that you are not sincere.
    
    I guess that a difficult question would be, what to do next?
    
    Marc H.

I don't have the time or energy to invest heavily in this discussion,
but allow me to inject another view...

>    Your point is irrelevant to any moral or ethical
>    questions regarding the parenting ability of same
>    sex couples.   

Hmmm... ok, let's assume that the homosexual couple is loving, great
parenting skills, the whole shootin' match.

But, they shouldn't be in that position in the first place - the Bible is
quite clear on the position of homosexuality.  It is wrong.  Public
opinion polls do not change that.

Just because a person has skills for something, doesn't follow that use of
those skills in any situation is 'right'.

-Steve

    
    
    Yes, what to do next?  I live my life attempting to harm no one, to
    help others, and love my God.  I'm often not successful, but I'm trying
    -- isn't that all any of us can do?
    
       GJD

    RE: .77
    
    No argument with me, GJD. Good words for all to live with.
    
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 513.76 by Steve "Steve Huston" 

>But, they shouldn't be in that position in the first place - the Bible is
>quite clear on the position of homosexuality.  It is wrong.  Public
>opinion polls do not change that.

If the Bible were so clear on this, I don't think we'd have over 3000 replies 
in Christianity and Gays topic # 91.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .76

    Well this just brings us back to acceptance of a moral
    teaching simply because it is *asserted* in a revered book
    .vs. acceptance and understanding of a moral teaching (such as
    that on the immorality of murder) because it is logical and 
    supported by objective evidence.

    Evidence such as the FACT that gay couples do raise children
    and that those children do in fact grow up to be happy, healthy,
    productive members of society.

    Besides, public opinion polls on the interpretation of Biblical 
    pronouncements on homosexual behavior do not necessarily point us to 
    the *correct* interpretation.   Honest people disagree.    And in 
    setting public policy, I don't think it is appropriate to rely on a 
    disputed understanding of some religious point of view when we have 
    empirical evidence to the contrary.

    /Greg

Note 513.73

>    Maybe...but, my opinion is that a homosexual "family" is wrong. 
>    To me, it just isn't normal.

Perhaps I should read the rest of the string before responding, but what the
heck, I'm a fool.

Let's also add that having an interracial couple for parents isn't normal.
Let's also add that having a blind or deaf couple for parents isn't normal.
Let's also add that having at least one parent who is permanently disabled
isn't normal (that's what my spouse and I inflicted on our kids).

Let's also add that being raised in a dysfunctional family is the norm.

I wonder, did Jesus call us to conform to socially defined norms?  Did Jesus
charge us with going out and reinforcing the status quo??

Richard

| <<< Note 513.61 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Living in a same sex environment is not truly familial as there is no
| way that these individuals *could* have produced the child together.

	Nancy, then by writing what you did all families who can not produce a
child are then considered not truly familial, right? If not, please explain.

| This is immoral.

	Same as above. Please explain.


Glen

| <<< Note 513.70 by DPDMAI::DAWSON "I've seen better times" >>>




| Aw come on people.  Nancy answered a question that she had refrained from 
| answering but Glen specifically asked for.  Now if you don't want an answer 
| then *DON'T* ask the question.  

	Dave, I think there is a difference between not wanting an answer and
not agreeing with it. I believe the latter is the issue. Nancy had mentioned
parents who can not produce as not being family, that they are immoral. Kind of
a sweeping statement to make when there are so many different groups that fall
into this, and they're heterosexual. She needs to clarify what she means a 
little more. Otherwise what she says sometimes looks silly.

| This is very close to "baiting" and I think it needs to stop.


	Dave, one can disagree with anyones answer and lists the reasons why,
can't they? You saw the note. Do you agree with it? 


Glen

| <<< Note 513.76 by CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston" >>>



| But, they shouldn't be in that position in the first place - the Bible is
| quite clear on the position of homosexuality.  It is wrong.  

	How about those people who do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but
are heterosexual? And those who come from different religions where the Bible
is not part of their normal everyday life? Should those people also not be in a
position of parenting? I'm being serious here.



Glen

    RE: .81
    
    Those other examples don't bother me one bit. Its just the homosexual
    "family" unit.
    
    No, you are not a fool, either.
    
    Marc H.

    re 513.81 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE

    Richard,

    I don't think Marc was using the word 'normal' to indicate statistical
    demographic break-outs, as you were. As you point out not every
    deviation from the demographic norm constitutes badness... but then
    again it doesn't intrinsically constitute goodness. 

    Your argument seems to be that since there are some things that buck
    the norm, but result in goodness then all things that buck the norm are
    goodness.


    Peace,
    	Eric

RE : <<< Note 513.81 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

�I wonder, did Jesus call us to conform to socially defined norms? 

Richard,

Isn't this what we are being asked to do?  Aren't we being asked to accept some-
thing society has deemed 'normal'? (I really don't like the word normal - I pre-
fer natural)

Jim()

    
    marc,
    
    other than your emotional/visceral reaction to same sex 
    couples, could you explain why it is "wrong"?
    
    i mean if you're going to say it's wrong i think you
    ought to be able to give us some concrete reasons since
    this will effect hundreds of thousands of your fellow
    citizens..
    
    or perhaps this is just an expression of your feelings and
    you really do support the extension of benefits to same-sex
    couples?
    
    peter

    RE: .83  Hi Glen,
    
    			Yes, of course you can ask questions.  What I am
    refering to is the seemingly purposeful intent to ask a question
    knowing full well that it will be answered as a "conservitive
    Christian" and then taking off on that person for the intent of 
    "scoring points".  You asked her to go ahead and answer the question
    and then some others jumped in after she did.  Now you know me Glen and
    I really haven't taken sides on many things but this one really got to
    me because of the barrage of notes disagreeing (sometimes bashing you
    have to admit) Nancy for speaking her mind.  Now if this file is open
    to all then she is *AS* protected as you are.   In the past Glen I have
    responded helping to protect your right to be here and I would again if
    need be, so thats what I am doing here.  Some of the dialogs lately
    have been getting very heated, and though I know that these issues are
    important to all of us, I believe that we *ALSO* need to understand her
    right to be here and speak also.  Some of the heat, I believe, is
    caused by known issues looking for an opportunity to combust. 
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .89
    
    Very accurate Dave.
    
    Marc H.

    How about being raised by a Virgin Mother?
    
    
    Would that qualify as normal?
    
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .88
    
    Peter,
      First off, my reaction will not affect hundreds of thousands...I wish
    I had power like that, but I don't.
    
    I used the word.."normal", not wrong for a reason. As I have
    stated before, I view a homosexual relationship as not "normal".
    I just can not get past that, and to tell you the truth, I don't
    think that I need to change my opinion.
    
    Wrong implies a value judgement, and I'm not ready to say that at this
    time.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .92
    
    I assume you are asking me. No, being raised by a Virgin mother
    would be far..far from normal. But you knew that.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 513.89 by DPDMAI::DAWSON "I've seen better times" >>>



| What I am refering to is the seemingly purposeful intent to ask a question
| knowing full well that it will be answered as a "conservitive Christian" and 
| then taking off on that person for the intent of "scoring points".  

	I can see how you would think this is the case now. It was not the
intention, but I do see how one would see it that way. I can't speak for the
others, but scoring points is not something that I think I need to do. I just
state my beliefs.

| Now you know me Glen and I really haven't taken sides on many things but this 
| one really got to me because of the barrage of notes disagreeing (sometimes 
| bashing you have to admit) Nancy for speaking her mind.  

	I do see why you might think this. But to be honest, until you pointed
it out I just looked at the notes as people asking her to explain the answers
better. Was anger involved in some? Yup. But from that I speculated that these
things mean a lot to that individual(s). I know for one I sometimes wonder
about Nancy.

| In the past Glen I have responded helping to protect your right to be here 
| and I would again if need be, so thats what I am doing here.  

	It's always appreciated. :-)  I do realize this is what you are doing
here. But like I said, until you pointed it out, I did not see your point at
all.

| Some of the dialogs lately have been getting very heated, 

	I think a lot of that has been delt with. Now that Nancy knows that
informing others when she is making an opinion will make things clearer, and
will stop people from thinking that her views are facts, I think the anger will
die down. But thanks for keeping the level head in here! It is appreciated not
just when I am the one getting dished, but when I am doing the dishing also.



Glen

    marc,
    
    certainly, you are entitled to your opinion..i never said
    or implied any differently.
    
    look again at your reply .73...
    
    allow me to put the question about same-sex families to you
    another way...given your opinion that they are not normal
    would you oppose the extension of health benefits, etc. to
    these families?
    
    peter

    RE: .96
    
    Health benifits? No problem at all. I wouldn't deny health benifits
    to a person for any reason.
    
    As a side note:  England denies some benifits to smokers. Especially
    if the person will not stop smoking.
    
    Marc H.

    I like the quote "homosexuality is a family affair".  Every Gay or
    Lesbian person is part of the family.  They are brothers and sisters,
    sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews.  Should they
    be excluded from these familial relationships too?

Note 513.86  Eric,

>    Your argument seems to be that since there are some things that buck
>    the norm, but result in goodness then all things that buck the norm are
>    goodness.

Allow me to clarify then.  I'm saying that not all things considered
normal are necessarily good.  I'm not saying all things considered normal
are necessarily wrong, either.  Normal is just that, normal.

There are people who will argue that interracial couples should avoid
having children because of the special difficulties those children are
likely to face.  There is not as much made of this as there used to be.
Why?  It's becoming more normal.

I have not led a normal life.  And I guess that has provided me with something
of an affinity with people who are gay.  Gays and I live in a world of people
who're mostly not like us and we know it.

Shalom,
Richard

You know, even at my age the thought of my mother and father actually
having sex with each other seems absurd and contrary, even laughably silly.

Richard

    I don't think I got an answer to this. There has been a lot of talk
    about a two-parent family being superior to a single-parent family.
    It has even been suggested that a single-parent family, be definition,
    is broken. And that a family is not a Godly family unless it is headed
    by two people capable of mutual procreation. Now my question is:

    	Is a single parent acting immorally and as a "bad" parent
    	if they do not seek out a spouse as soon a possible to take 
    	the place of the absent parent?

    Eric

Note 513.101

>    	Is a single parent acting immorally and as a "bad" parent
>    	if they do not seek out a spouse as soon a possible to take 
>    	the place of the absent parent?

Eric,

	I doubt I'm the one to whom you're addressing the question.
Nevertheless, I'll poke my nose in.

	I do not believe it is a moral requirement to replace a parent.  This
is one of those situations in which there can be so many variables and
complexities that it would be truly difficult to say what would be right in
every instance.

	As a step-parent to my eldest, I can tell you that trying to take the
place of a natural parent is doomed to failure.

Peace,
Richard

Note 513.101

I would also submit that it's quite possible to have a "broken" family
even when the marriage is legally intact and the biological family is
sharing the same dwelling.

Richard

    re: Note 513.103 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    
    Sad, but true.  

Jesus indicated that his mother, sister and brother were not necessarily
his blood relatives, but instead were those who do the will of God.

When Jesus said he brought a sword, he elaborated on some of the familial
divisions he would lamentably cause.

Jesus said whoever loved their mother or father more than him was not
worthy of him.

It kind of makes you wonder about Jesus' family values, doesn't it?

Shalom,
Richard

RE:        <<< Note 513.105 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>
                           -< Jesus' family values >-


>It kind of makes you wonder about Jesus' family values, doesn't it?


 Not when one considers the context in which He was speaking, it doesn't.





Jim

| <<< Note 513.106 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Play ball!" >>>



| Not when one considers the context in which He was speaking, it doesn't.


	Jim, even if the were Jesus' family values, aren't we supposed to be as
much like Him as we humanly can?


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 513.107 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>	Jim, even if the were Jesus' family values, aren't we supposed to be as
>much like Him as we humanly can?



Yes...the more of our lives we surrender to him, the more we can become like
Him.  By placing Him before all of our earthly responsibilities, we can grow
to be more like Him, and the better our family relatioships become..though,
because of our committment to Him, we may see family members reject us/Him.




Jim

I heard today that unmarried women are becoming pregnant at 400 times
the rate occuring 30 years ago.

Should these unmarried women who become pregnant put their children up
for adoption?

Right or wrong, a woman who has a child will reduce the number of potential
mates interested in establishing a permanent relationship.  The reverse, I
suspect, is also true.  Not everyone desires a ready-made family or the
complexities thereof.  Both men and women have been quite vocal about this.
Having married a woman who already had a child, I can certainly understand
their hesitation.

So what is one to do?

Richard

    I think, even within context, Jesus' statements about family and
    bonds of kinship could be seen validly as very disturbing, if
    not alarming.
    
    However, I'll not argue the point.  Let it suffice that Jesus might
    pose a threat to family ties.  The potential exists.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    >So what is one to do?

    Not a hard question. One is to avoid having children outside of 
    marriage. It's really pretty easy to do. Complexity happens when
    that simple guideline is broached. Should unmarried people put their
    children up for adoption? A blanket answer is simplistic and ignores
    too many realities. Obviously adoption is preferable to abortion but
    after that it gets hard and is highly dependent on too many things.

    			Alfred

Note 513.112

>    Not a hard question. One is to avoid having children outside of 
>    marriage. It's really pretty easy to do.

Not after the fact, which is what I was asking about.

Further, it does happen, so I hear, that even married couples conceive
unplanned, unwanted children.

Richard

    Man, I just got back from the most wonderful 4 day vacation with my two
    boys. I've never felt closer to God then hiking and camping in the
    Yosemite Valley.  
    
    One incredible day when we were hiking on some horse trails in the
    forest, we came upon a tree that was growing strangely.  This tree shot
    straight up for about 10 feet, then curved at a 180 degree angle to the
    left, then it shot straight up again another 20-25 feet where the look
    of a normal leafing began.  Another tree had fallen perpendicular to 
    this tree at exactly the 10 foot marker and rested on a rock behind it.
    
    My oldest Matthew commented that it looked like a cross.  The imagery
    this tree portrayed to us was astrounding.  We all stood speechless
    gazing at its structure for at least a full minute.  Matthew requested
    that we sing  "The Old Rugged Cross" and we did.  The three of our
    voices in unison.  Then we prayed and praised Jesus for another while,
    time was insignificant.  The Spirit of God just came upon all of us as
    tears began to flow down our faces, [all three of us].  We didn't want
    to leave this spot, we just kept lingering there.
    
    As the Spirit moved our hearts we each had a revelation that was deep
    in meaning for our family.  Clayton made the comment that God had
    formed the tree just for us.  Matthew then said that according to the
    size of the base of the tree [approx ring size], it must be at least
    100 years old and that God knew 100 years ago that we would walk this
    path and see this tree.
    
    I then asked the boys if they realized what day it was, Friday, the day
    Christ was crucified on the Cross.  Again, we praised God for this
    wonderful reminder of Easter and what Christ had done for us.
    
    To say nonetheless, the day was a Spirit filled day ending with our
    Travel Journals recounting the event...
    
    Last night I asked the boys what their most favorite part of the
    vacation was [there was a LOT!] And they both said, the Tree that was
    formed to be a cross.  This truly had an impact on my boys.
    
    I know this note is off subject here, but I must comment that the
    imagery of the cross and what Christ did for *all* of us is very
    sobering and awesome to me.  That kind of love expressed goes beyond
    what words can express.  This is the love and the only love that
    surpasses all.  The path on which we walked was a relatively easy one,
    but it had it's rocks and hurdles to hike over, not unlike the
    spiritual path to the Cross.
    
    May the Love of Christ surpass all things,
    Nancy
    

    re Note 513.114 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 

    Wow! Sounds like you had quite a moving and recharging vacation. Though
    I've never been moved to song, I have been moved to quite prayer from
    experiences with nature. The creative power of God is truly awesome.

    > That kind of love expressed goes beyond what words can express. This
    > is the love and the only love that surpasses all. 

    Exactly. Jesus himself said that the greatest love of all was to lay
    down your life for your another person. The ultimate in selflessness.

    In the peace of Christ,
    	Eric 
    
    PS. I'm pleased to hear your "broken" family is so together. :^)

    .114 Thank you, Nancy, for sharing that experience with us.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Re.114
    
    Nancy,
    
    How lovely...
    
    Cindy

Last Tuesday the Colorado Springs City Council took up the issue of
whether or not to lift the ban on concealed firearms in city parks and
city buildings.

Addressing City Council in favor of permitting concealed firearms in our
city parks and buildings was one Kevin Tebedo, Director of Colorado for
Family Values (or CFV).  Tebedo tipped his hand with this issue.  Tebedo's
organization might more accurately be named Colorado for an Arch-Conservative
Agenda (or CACA).

Richard

    Yes but Washinton DC is still in shambels and they have the strongest
    gun control laws in the state.
    
    -Jack

re Note 513.119 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Yes but Washinton DC is still in shambels and they have the strongest
>     gun control laws in the state.
  
        You do realize that it is totally unreasonable to draw any
        particular conclusion from the above (since Washington DC
        differs in many ways from all states and most other cities),
        don't you?

        Bob

    Why's that?  
    
    

Also see topic 723, "Christianity and Gun Control."

Shalom,
Richard