Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Inspired by meldor:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=953296#post953296
...who points out that the bottom line is that your POV on gay rights is based on your feelings about how nurturing families should or could be structured.
I'll expand a little bit:
If you believe that the Traditional Family System is the ONLY way to go, than you will be opposed to gays raising children or a variety of alternative family structures and situations.
If you believe that the Traditional Family System is NOT the ONLY way to go, than you may support alternative family structures.
In between there are those would want to judge each system individually or judge each family individually.
And at the radical opposite extreme are those who believe that the Traditional Family System could be or is actually damaging.
***
Definition of TFS: Union of a man and a woman, who may or may not have children. Divorce is extremely rare and greatly discouraged. The man is primarily the breadwinner -- brings income into the household; and the woman is primarily the homemaker -- keeps the house in order and takes care of the kids. Religious piety and public scrutiny discourage the parents from taking action that could risk the sanctity of the home.
***
Pros:
*Traditional, in most cultures of the world, from the dawn of civilization (and before, most probably.) Tried and true.
*Holds male breadwinner strictly accountable for taking care of his families' economic needs. Minimizes potential for the family to require charity or public assistance.
*Because she is economically dependent on her husband (because she has less earning power,) the woman is more likely to fulfill her obligation to the family.
*Because he faces loss of prestiege and therefore earning power, the man is more likely to fulfill his obligation to the family.
*Children are raised in an enviroment similar to other children. Maintains cultural cohesion.
*Leverages all the benefits of organized religion in instilling values, cultural norms and collective (charitable) efforts.
*Potentially deflationary -- double the workforce means double the income, which causes the economy to boom (as long as resources can sustain it) but ultimately the increased money causes prices to rise, as supply and demand forces interact. It is typical for a middle-class family to have two incomes now... necessary for many. In the past, one was generally enough.
Cons:
*Women are less in control of their destiny, because of their decreased earning power.
*All the negative, judgemental dogmatic aspects of organized religion come too.
*Rigid societal structure may limit ability of the people to innovate and adapt to changing conditions. Loss of potential gains that could be had by embracing diversity.
*The parents may be miserable together, and subtle psychological effects can damage all involved.
*Definitely less "free" in the sense of allowing humans to do as they please. Religious and societal norms discourage alternatives.
*If one or both parents are abusive, there are fewer options for getting the children or abused parent out of harm's way.
*Might not be compatible w/ the easy mobility of modern existance. One of the reasons that the nuclear family has dwindled in ubiquitiy is that modern transportation and mobility in the 50s and 60s encouraged people to move away f/ their extended families.
*Increased COL since expansion of workforce could be explained by dramatically increased standard of living -- bigger homes, electronics, multiple cars etc... -- now std to be considered middle class.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=953296#post953296
...who points out that the bottom line is that your POV on gay rights is based on your feelings about how nurturing families should or could be structured.
I'll expand a little bit:
If you believe that the Traditional Family System is the ONLY way to go, than you will be opposed to gays raising children or a variety of alternative family structures and situations.
If you believe that the Traditional Family System is NOT the ONLY way to go, than you may support alternative family structures.
In between there are those would want to judge each system individually or judge each family individually.
And at the radical opposite extreme are those who believe that the Traditional Family System could be or is actually damaging.
***
Definition of TFS: Union of a man and a woman, who may or may not have children. Divorce is extremely rare and greatly discouraged. The man is primarily the breadwinner -- brings income into the household; and the woman is primarily the homemaker -- keeps the house in order and takes care of the kids. Religious piety and public scrutiny discourage the parents from taking action that could risk the sanctity of the home.
***
Pros:
*Traditional, in most cultures of the world, from the dawn of civilization (and before, most probably.) Tried and true.
*Holds male breadwinner strictly accountable for taking care of his families' economic needs. Minimizes potential for the family to require charity or public assistance.
*Because she is economically dependent on her husband (because she has less earning power,) the woman is more likely to fulfill her obligation to the family.
*Because he faces loss of prestiege and therefore earning power, the man is more likely to fulfill his obligation to the family.
*Children are raised in an enviroment similar to other children. Maintains cultural cohesion.
*Leverages all the benefits of organized religion in instilling values, cultural norms and collective (charitable) efforts.
*Potentially deflationary -- double the workforce means double the income, which causes the economy to boom (as long as resources can sustain it) but ultimately the increased money causes prices to rise, as supply and demand forces interact. It is typical for a middle-class family to have two incomes now... necessary for many. In the past, one was generally enough.
Cons:
*Women are less in control of their destiny, because of their decreased earning power.
*All the negative, judgemental dogmatic aspects of organized religion come too.
*Rigid societal structure may limit ability of the people to innovate and adapt to changing conditions. Loss of potential gains that could be had by embracing diversity.
*The parents may be miserable together, and subtle psychological effects can damage all involved.
*Definitely less "free" in the sense of allowing humans to do as they please. Religious and societal norms discourage alternatives.
*If one or both parents are abusive, there are fewer options for getting the children or abused parent out of harm's way.
*Might not be compatible w/ the easy mobility of modern existance. One of the reasons that the nuclear family has dwindled in ubiquitiy is that modern transportation and mobility in the 50s and 60s encouraged people to move away f/ their extended families.
*Increased COL since expansion of workforce could be explained by dramatically increased standard of living -- bigger homes, electronics, multiple cars etc... -- now std to be considered middle class.
You seem to draw wide conclusiones based on the observations of a few colleagues.
