Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, November 16, 2012

"There's no way you can have a family with two females or two males."

Posted by on Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Reminds me of some graffiti I saw in London way, way back in the 1980s when the conservative party there was campaigning against "pretend" gay families. "Lesbians Mothers Aren't PRETENDING."

And there is a way you can have a family with two males or two females, Rev. Franklin "Second Generation Jesus Grifter" Graham: adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination. We do it the same way infertile straight couples do it.

 

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
treacle 1
Don't forget situations where there is accidental death and a sister, brother, aunt or uncle comes to live with and help take care of the children.

Gosh, back in actual traditional times, a family would easily consist of three-five adults (uncle/aunt, brother/sister, grandparent(s)) and any number of children (siblings, cousins, neighborhood adoptees after that terrible house fire took their parents...)

I'm not sure why Mr. Graham would prefer to consider the 1950's "traditional", when we can easily go back 200, 500, 1000, or 5000 years -- or even go cross-culturally-- and look at traditional families everywhere.

Why just stick to this exceedingly modern "nuclear family" that was only really encouraged to exist less than 100 years ago.

You want "traditional"? Let's talk actual traditions, and not some made up, post-Industrial Revolution BS.
Posted by treacle on November 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 2
Frozen in the stone age.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
treacle 3
Oh, and don't forget "Biblical" families, that contained concubines as well.
Let's go back to that tradition!
Posted by treacle on November 16, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
The Max 4
"adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination..."

...and let's not forget those God-given rape babies. Or babies born and sired from one-time experiments in teh Het, whether it was adventurism or an honest attempt to fulfill Conversion Therapy.
Posted by The Max on November 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 5
Basically: "Sure, sure, you can have a household full of love and stability, but you won't have my approval, so you're not real." Keep right on putting your hands over your eyes and telling us we're invisible. It's cute.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on November 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM · Report this
6
He's right! You require at least one or two dominatrixes as well. (Or is that dominatrices???)

http://www.ladyaurora.net/

http://www.victoriarage.com/

Support your local businesses! ! !
Posted by sgt_doom on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM · Report this
treacle 7
2, Actually not. Stone age families consisted of a group of anywhere from 50-500 people living together, with everyone taking care of everyone's children.

Because people then probably didn't realize that sex and children were connected, babies more or less magically appeared, and then it was the responsibility of the whole group to take care of them. Not just a highly vulnerable "male-female" pair.

Webs are stronger than single lines...
Posted by treacle on November 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
rob! 8
There was no mention of this the other day when it was on the air. People may want to read the transcript (or click the Listen button).

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/14/165140583/…
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on November 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM · Report this
rob! 9
(Franklin Graham is not a player in this arena, though he'd like to be. Ignore him.)
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on November 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM · Report this
10
First you get this Graham bullcrap, and next you wind up with .....

http://www.thelocal.se/44458/20121116/

http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/444…

(This is what destroys a society, lack of civility in the womens' showers...all civil people support the shaving by women of their legs in public showers. Geez Louise!!!!!)

Posted by sgt_doom on November 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 11
@7: But that would be communism. Much better the species die out than Thag have to share the large bird he caught with Grok's child.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 12
Traditionally, at least in my ancestry, the sept (extended family) was part of a clan, and they had responsibility for raising children. Marriages could be: a. for life b. for a year c. for a period agreed to (5 years on average). The clan or sept recognized it, and had the ultimate responsibility.

Of course, that included slavery, indentured servitude, being married to different people in different places, mistresses (exactly like now), sleeping with other men/women (exactly like now) who may be married.

The marriage was about children, property rights. It was, sadly, rarely about love.

That's traditional marriage.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
14
Of course he quotes Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. He likes that creation myth better.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on November 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
15
@This Guy I Know in Spokane: Your comment made me smile.

It's nice to finally be on the winning side of equality. Which states are next? Come on, Wisco!
Posted by The fag on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 16
@3- You think he doesn't want that? The guy probably beats off to The Handmaid's Tale.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on November 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
treacle 17
11, that's true. What the Stone Age actually needed to be more efficient was money, so that they could pay each ...uh... hominid their true worth according to what they did for the group, and of course allocate all resources effectively.

Of course, the only way they could get money is if they had invented a government which could then issue bonds in order to finance a war, which would in turn be purchased by the Treasury -- essentially issuing money against the bonds (which were never repaid anyway). Yay war-money! Yes, the Stone Age clearly needed more war.

Sorry, bit of a digression there. Back to the future, and strengthening families with social webs!
Posted by treacle on November 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
merry 18
Oh, Rev. Franklin "Second Generation Jesus Grifter" Graham...

Here's what you can do - what you are already doing, in fact, even though you don't know it:

In the words of the great Debbie Harry, you can go right ahead and "Fade Away and Radiate" -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L6YZ0Xx7…
Posted by merry on November 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
20
Wait... didn't Family get redefined when Marriage did, if not earlier? Or did the parents among us change their alliance?
Posted by vennominon on November 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM · Report this
sirkowski 21
There's no way to make a family by virgin birth either.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on November 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM · Report this
22
@2: As @1 had mentioned, if he was frozen in the stone age, it wouldn't be "family" it would be "clan". Which would very likely involve raising children which may or may not have come out of you, nevermind any questions about who the hell the father was. More than likely such questions wouldn't even be asked in the first place, or if they were, the answer would be something along the lines of "oh well, kids are kids, and dammit, we need as many as we can get! We lost four last winter alone!"
Posted by gromm on November 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM · Report this
sissoucat 23
What about families where the het father has been murdered by his country's leaders pet war ? Families that consist of the helping granny, the working mommy, and the children ? Are those not real either ?

This Graham is a war-mongering idiot too - religious grifter types often are. So he's actively campaining for the manufacturing of two-female families through war already. And that's all right with him.

What he's against is not two-female families, it's non-heterosexuals being allowed to be a family.
Posted by sissoucat on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy