Liberty, Joe, Waygood, and all,

This has gone on long enough. The ISI Forum is not your pulpit, plaything, or editorial page. The ISI Forum is for intelligent discussion and debate. I don't recall opinion, personal attacks, or unsubstantiated remarks being protocol for discussion or debate.

Also, the ISI Forum has a large audience, young and old. There is no parental approval process for reading or joining the discussion. You must, therefore, be on guard not to post material that would be offensive to young visitors. No exceptions.

This is the only warning you will receive. If you cannot remain true to the purposes of the ISI Forum, then you will be asked to leave.

You are correct in acknowledging there are no "Terms of Use" for the Forum. The expectation was that users were mature enough to police one another. You can be sure this will be remedied.

If you have something to say about this message, send it to feedback@isi.org or keep it to yourself.

Let's get back to the original topic of this thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Big Brother,

In an attempt to heed Big Brother's directive, I'll respond to the substantive part that seems to go directly to the heart of this thread:

quote:

Funny, when I was thinking of political positions, this isn’t quite were my mind first went. I’m not sure where you’re pulling this from but I’m intrigued now. When you’re able to explain to me how "bestiality and homosexuality" is able to produce life, I’ll ask for re-admittance to Joe-Land USA.

(I realize this is a topic that can easily veer into "unsuitable for children of all ages" territory, and so I will deliberately be obtuse in order to make my point and move on).

So all sexual activities which are unable to produce life are morally equivalent, and sanctioning one is akin to sanctioning the other?

If you take this to be true, you're taking a position to the extreme right of most everyone in this nation and indeed the world, and indeed to the extreme right of most people of faith as well, in words if not in practice.

And this is why, to tie it into the original topic of this thread, you miss the point on what it means to raise a family in a modern society. The traditional 'roles' assigned to each member of the family, in terms of acting in accordance with gender norms, norms of family construction, etc. were *utilitarian* constructs of the times in which they were made, by no means immutable over time and space. There is ample room for discussion of what the family constitutes *today* and what the best way is for a modern family to raise virtuous children and give them the best opportunities possible (A starting point - how our society can and should be working, by the least draconian means possible, to reduce out of wedlock births without restricting cherished freedoms). But at the present, you're conversing outside that vital issue and clinging to a bygone era's definition of what constitutes a good family for purely sentimental reasons.

Hopefully, this will be a decent start for moving this thread back on track.