Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Mare Tranquillity]

You gathered wrong.

A fallacy will remain a fallacy regardless of the amount of people who believe it is true. The converse, of course, follows.

The earth is neither flat, nor spherical, nor oblate. The actual shape of the earth, the geoid, is the summation of the differential surfaces normal to the lines of gravity in all directions.

Despite your attempt at obfuscation with the shape of the Earth, my point was correct and you have not addressed it. I said that "Sometimes loud claims of 'logic' are nothing more than a lack of knowledge bolstered by human ego." I didn't say that it was based on majority sentiment as you implied. Lack of knowledge and overweening human ego often determine what passes for logic.

Nobody is denying anything, least of all the abilty to form meaningful relationships. Defining the family as the conjugal union between a man and a woman does not preclude anyone to form bonds with his fellow man.

I never meant procreation to mean the act of sexual reproduction alone -- although it most definitely commences from conjugal union.

So now you are backing off of your previous statement, fine, I appreciate your willingness to broaden the definition of "traditional family". You used the word "procreate" which means to "produce offspring" according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but as long as you are willing to recognize that there is a wide diversity in what can be considered a "traditional family" then I don't see that we have any disagreement.

 

[Coyote]

Try googling humanae vitae or the udhr.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

I googled them.

For the humanae vitae I found Wikipedia.

For the UDHR - I found this: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


I don't see how that relates to the traditional family but excludes such arrangements as bigamy for example.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody is denying anything, least of all the abilty to form meaningful relationships. Defining the family as the conjugal union between a man and a woman does not preclude anyone to form bonds with his fellow man.

What if those bonds create a family...what if there are children involved...are they not a family?

 

[numinus]

Despite your attempt at obfuscation with the shape of the Earth, my point was correct and you have not addressed it.

Your point is NOT correct.

It is very logical to assume the earth is flat when the extent of your inquiry is limited. When you are working within an area of a 100 hectares or less, it is quite convenient to consider the earth flat since the earth's curvature would be quite negligible then. In fact, the mathematics commonly used within such an extent is simple PLANE geometry and trigonometry.

Of course, as you go further, the effects of curvature becomes significant. However, for medieval navigation purposes, a flat earth would still yield acceptable results. People have been using maps long before differential geometry was invented.

I said that "Sometimes loud claims of 'logic' are nothing more than a lack of knowledge bolstered by human ego." I didn't say that it was based on majority sentiment as you implied. Lack of knowledge and overweening human ego often determine what passes for logic.

You said:

"At one time it was logical to everyone that the Earth was flat,..."

What is one led to understand from your statement, eh?

So now you are backing off of your previous statement, fine, I appreciate your willingness to broaden the definition of "traditional family". You used the word "procreate" which means to "produce offspring" according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but as long as you are willing to recognize that there is a wide diversity in what can be considered a "traditional family" then I don't see that we have any disagreement.

My statement is entirely consistent -- even if you wish to counter-check them in other threads. If you had a catholic education, the distinction would have been clear from the beginning, I suppose.

Of course, human reproduction is an integral part of pro-creation. That is why marriage and the family are fundamental institutions meant to bring out the "fullness of human life".

 

[numinus]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

I googled them.

For the humanae vitae I found Wikipedia.

It is a catholic encyclical -- originally couched in the divine language.

For the UDHR - I found this: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I don't see how that relates to the traditional family but excludes such arrangements as bigamy for example.

What is clear from the document is that family relationships bourne from natural reproductive processes are pre-eminent to all human relationships -- even surpassing that of the sovereign political association.

 

[numinus]

What if those bonds create a family...what if there are children involved...are they not a family?

How can any human relationship, other than conjugal, produce children, hence family?

 

[vyo476]

How can any human relationship, other than conjugal, produce children, hence family?

Why is the production of children a necessity for the creation of a family?

 

[numinus]

Why is the production of children a necessity for the creation of a family?

Why do you wish to question something that is self-evident? It is like asking why you were born the way you were born. It is so simply because it is your nature to be so.

Honestly. I don't know what sort of answer you want from me, nor the point of asking such a question in the first place.

 

[9sublime]

A family does not neccessarily have to be a genetic family.

 

[numinus]

A family does not neccessarily have to be a genetic family.

Of course it is. What made you think it isn't?

 

[Coyote]

How can any human relationship, other than conjugal, produce children, hence family?

That doesn't answer the question.....

What if those bonds create a family...what if there are children involved...are they not a family?

 

[vyo476]

Why do you wish to question something that is self-evident? It is like asking why you were born the way you were born. It is so simply because it is your nature to be so.

Honestly. I don't know what sort of answer you want from me, nor the point of asking such a question in the first place.

I suppose it is because "family" is a tough word to define these days. I've known families that were just two people - single father (Mom died in childbirth) and son. I've known families that were enormous - one of my cousins lives in Honduras with his wife, three biological children, six adopted children, and usually a few runaways or orphans that they take in off the street (I believe there are two such children with them right now but it's been several months since we've been in contact). They consider all those kids to be part of their family. And then there are families absent parents - people who just take care of each other out of mutual affection, basically tightly-knit groups of friends, who consider each other to be family.

Each of those three cases are families in my book. Why aren't they in yours?

 

[Coyote]

It is a catholic encyclical -- originally couched in the divine language.



What is clear from the document is that family relationships bourne from natural reproductive processes are pre-eminent to all human relationships -- even surpassing that of the sovereign political association.

Ok...then, what you define as a "traditional" family is any conjugial relationship(s) that produce children?

 

[numinus]

I suppose it is because "family" is a tough word to define these days. I've known families that were just two people - single father (Mom died in childbirth) and son.

Are you suggesting that the definition of family I gave does not include the unfortunate circumstance of a mother's death?

I grew up with 3 cousins when my aunt died and my uncle left the country for a better-paying job overseas. I am more comfortable with them than my own brother and sister but they are still my cousins -- and my parents, their aunt and uncle.

I've known families that were enormous - one of my cousins lives in Honduras with his wife, three biological children, six adopted children,

Adoption is a last resort, when there is no next of kin.

and usually a few runaways or orphans that they take in off the street (I believe there are two such children with them right now but it's been several months since we've been in contact). They consider all those kids to be part of their family. And then there are families absent parents - people who just take care of each other out of mutual affection, basically tightly-knit groups of friends, who consider each other to be family.

Runaways and orphans need to be with their kin. Would you think it ok if somebody took your child as their own (without exerting any effort to contact you) if the child ran away from home?

Each of those three cases are families in my book. Why aren't they in yours?

I am not preventing anyone from acting as surrogate family to another person, if that is what you are suggesting.

 

[numinus]

Ok...then, what you define as a "traditional" family is any conjugial relationship(s) that produce children?

Correct.