A Homosexual Family Is NOT A Family At All

I follow links. It's something I do out of curiosity. Today I followed one of Jillian's links at "CAUTION: girl underway" (dead link), looked at the drawing and then read the comments. The drawing was done by Jessica at Indexed. Jessica does a LOT of drawings.

This is the drawing about "family":

She may ask me to remove it if she reads what I have to say about it.

The drawing in question is nothing more than something that is considered politically correct. I am NOT a politically correct person. I completely disagree and this is why: The very word "family" is defined as "parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not". Parents are a couple of individuals, combined together as male and female, normally capable of producing children. Unless modern science and genetics has done something I am completely unaware of, a male plus male or a female plus female relationship is incapable of producing offspring.

You can call it anything you like, but it's still not a family unless a male and female are involved. A family is capable of reproducing. The other kinds of relationships are not. It's really that simple.

I'm going to throw a little religious curve on this as well. There's a reason that homosexuality is not mentioned more than once in the bible. It's because the people of that era knew what a family consisted of. There was no question to answer and nothing to explain. It's the post New Testament world that seems to think that a family can be anything we want it to be.

Subscribe To Untwisted Vortex:

Full Post Feed |

Summary Feed |

Comments Feed

Matt on 2007-05-12 at 9:16 pm (Reply)

Gotta say I agree with you RT.

jer on 2007-05-12 at 10:40 pm (Reply)

So by your logic, a child who learns that she was in fact adopted, and that her adoptive parents were never able to have children of their "own" is not a part of a family?

Are you telling me that the kids on that show Full House were not a family, simply because their mother is dead and the uncles that live with them aren't capable of reproducing?

I think you're letting yourself justify away things that you personaly have a problem with, because as I've demonstrated, your logic is no good.

Whether or not homosexuality is right, your definition of what does and does not constitute a family needs some serious work.

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-12 at 10:58 pm (Reply)

I specifically avoided adoptions and partial families and purposely didn't say "designed to reproduce" to see how far anyone would read into it.

The "Full House" analogy doesn't work though. The family started as a whole and then became a partial family, but still remained a family. A family, once established, never turns into anything else.

jer on 2007-05-12 at 11:29 pm (Reply)

Whether you think you "avoided" adoption or not, what you actually argued is that in order for people to be considered a family, they have to meet the following criteria:

They have to
A) be two parents capable of having children
B) actually have children that are offspring of both parents

and

C) not be gay

Then I countered with two perfectly reasonable family situations that are in violation of two out of the three of those (non gay) criteria. You tried to dismiss away adoption with some sort of magic jedi hand wave, and then altered you'd original position thusly:

Now to be a family you say you have to

A) be two parents capable of having children
B) actually have children that are offspring of both parents
or
C) have met A and B in the past, regardless of whether they currently meet them

and of course

D) not be gay.

I'd really like you to address the adoption scenario, because you are apparently as against straight adoption as gay adoption.

Here's another situation:

Husband and wife, man is infertile. Man's brother donates sperm, wife has twins. Twins grow up. Are the twins part of a family? Is the husband?

hari on 2007-05-12 at 11:37 pm (Reply)

Look, folks who want to turn this into a raging debate.

This need not be explained by the author. He's expressed his feelings in his own blog and nobody needs to agree with it.

However, let's not turn this into a fight because that's exactly what it's shaping up to be. Just let people express their feelings on issues.

Who said anybody's feelings or thoughts should be perfectly explainable, logical, rational and be acceptable to everybody in the world?

Arguing with random strangers on the internet isn't going to solve issues of the world. If this was a public forum, I can understand the need for debate. But this is a personal weblog - nothing more or less. So if you agree with the author, go ahead and agree. But if you disagree, at least agree to disagree and leave it at that…

There's absolutely no reason why RT should have to provide a reason or a logic for his stance on anything at all to you or me or anybody else.

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-12 at 11:54 pm (Reply)

Really, jer, I didn't want to get into it further than I did. The point was that man+man+child or woman+woman+child does not a family create. If it turns into that by circumstance (death, divorce, etc.) the family still exists but is now dysfunctional.

As far as adoption goes, substitute "capable of " with "designed for". An adoption family is still a family, but created artificially. The biological family may also still exist.

Your last two questions are too deep, even for me. I don't even want to think about it.

And that was not a Jedi hand wave, it was a Jedi mind trick, now get it right.

Jillian on 2007-05-13 at 12:16 am (Reply)

I disagree, RT. But I am proud of you for defending your belief on the matter, because you have every right to do so. I still ♥ you.

jer on 2007-05-13 at 12:19 am (Reply)

RT: that's exactly what I was trying to get out of you. That your opposition has nothing to do with definitions of family, more that you crafted a definition to support your opposition. I have no problem with your opposition itself, I just want you to frame it in an honest way.

(As an aside: You might be suprised at how I feel about what we're talking about, but how I feel is irrelvant. Also how you feel is irrelvant, as you didn't say this is how you feel, you said this is how it IS.)

It's perfectly fine for you to feel that homosexuality is wrong, but that's not what you were arguing. You were stating it as if the very fabric of the universe is against it and you're just going along with it.

My scenarios broke every one of your arguments save for "I just think it's wrong," and I ask that you keep that in mind in the future when arguing against (or for) what it is that you think is right or wrong.

Hari: it's all good. I'm not upset, and I doubt RT is either. And the amount of time RT spends on talking about how he's doing things for the benefit of the readers make it far more than "just a personal weblog," so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some clarification.

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-13 at 12:23 am (Reply)

Jillian, I knew you didn't agree with me because you said you agreed with the original thought (on your blog). That's why I said I disagreed. Now my eyes are crossed.

I respect anyone's position on anything, I merely stated my own opinion. And yes, young lady, I still ♥ you too.

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-13 at 12:25 am (Reply)

Actually, jer, I read the definition out of a dictionary. I'm not smart enough to create definitions.

hari on 2007-05-13 at 12:36 am (Reply)

Hari: it's all good. I'm not upset, and I doubt RT is either. And the amount of time RT spends on talking about how he's doing things for the benefit of the readers make it far more than "just a personal weblog" so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some clarification.

No problem.

About it being a "personal weblog" or not. It technically still remains one, because RT's still the only contributor here and he owns this website. What he does for his readers is great, but a totally different issue…

Nevertheless, I'm not making that a point of debate, so I'll accept your views on this

jer on 2007-05-13 at 2:41 am (Reply)

Well, it was you that defined "parents" the way you did. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "parents" as:

One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother.

It doesn't say anything about requiring both a father and a mother, only that they're someone who nurtures and raises the children in question. That's what I'm talking about; you're claiming that it's the very definitions of these things that prevent them from working, when it's actually your bias that's doing so. I was just trying to point out that your arguments break down under the scenarios I proposed to show that those can't be the reasons that you're against them. If they really were, you'd be against adoption and single-parent households as well. Which you either aren't, or won't admit to as vehemntly as you do with the "gay parenting" version. I'm just trying to challenge you to stand up for what you believe with actual reasoning and argument to back it up, rather than (probably accidental) dishonest arguments.

The thing the Venn diagram in question was trying to say is that all those situations involve kids being loved by the people they consider their parents. I don't see how you could disagree with that, whethe ryou're against homosexuality or not. I don't think they love the kids any less than actual birth parents do, and certainly no less than same-sex adoptive couples.

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-13 at 2:49 am (Reply)

Listen. It's not worth arguing over. The post title was my original statement and I quoted the definition of family from the first definition that popped up at dictionary.reference.com. The rest is just a matter of opinion.

Calthas on 2007-05-13 at 4:46 am (Reply)

I guess I have a very unusual sense of family. I have my biological family. They raised me, cared for me the best and worst ways they could but I do not really have a sense of family with them. A couple of my biological extended family I do consider in my view of "family" but most of the ones that fall under this sort are people that are not related to me. Now in the sense of children being raised by whoever or whatever personally I don't care as long as they are raised up in a stable situation, are cared for, are healthy, and have the option in their young lives to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. I did enjoy reading this and have to shake my head at some of the comments. This is your blog, you shouldn't be flamed for your opinion and people should respect it either way.

Matthew Jabs on 2007-05-13 at 6:07 am (Reply)

This is a classic example of what's wrong with America…people cannot accept the fact that something is simply right or wrong.

Why is it right or wrong? Because the Christ said so in the bible. Period. If you don't see things this way, then my question to you is simply this…who designates what's right & wrong in your life? Yourself?

Personally, I appreciate the fact that God gave us standards to live by, He gave us right, & He gave us wrong. We get to choose which we follow, but we don't get to choose which is which.

RT's post is correct. To blur the definition with a bunch of scenarios completely missed the point.

jer on 2007-05-13 at 7:36 am (Reply)

It saddens me to see that people think I'm flaming, beecause really, I'm not. I'm merely trying to engage in the rational manner that RT decided to try to use to make his point. Unfortunately RT's point isn't based on the argument that he presented as the basis for it, instead it's one based on personal faith.

Matt: I'd have to disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but I really can't because your argument is completely hinged on your faith. You're openly admitting that, so all is good.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that RT is trying to make, I'm just taking issue with how he's making it. In fact, I probably more agree with what he's trying to get at than disagree, I just wish he'd either a) admit that it's a personal bias based on his own personal belief, or b) reframe his rational-seeming argument so that it is in fact rational.

Anyway, it's clear that what I'm trying to do is not having the desired effect, and that I'm just upsetting people, so I'm out.
Sorry to anyone who doesn't see what I'm saying and thinks I'm trying to flame RT.

Dick on 2007-05-13 at 8:10 am (Reply)

I truly believe what ever the makeup of the adults in a family with children, if it is a loving home and nurtures the children it is a good home

RT Cunningham | Untwisted Vortex | Philippines on 2007-05-13 at 8:49 am (Reply)

I'm going to make a final comment before I close the comments on this one. It got out of hand way too fast. I made the point that I disagreed with my interpretation of a drawing. It wasn't based on anything but my own opinion. Of course my opinion is biased. Everyone's opinion is influenced by one thing or another. I shouldn't have to preface every statement I make with "I believe" or "I feel" or "I think" because that part of it should be obvious.

An American Living in the Philippines

A Homosexual Family Is NOT A Family At All