• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
ArtemisBarca said:
That is worse.....


“Nuclear family, also called elementary family, in sociology and anthropology, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.”


Now , assuming this is not only referencing the psychological text books specific terminology...

(The “noun” : definition gave the traditional definition I quoted, with no disclaimer..)


And Really not referring to the colloquial sense at all.. That is both stupid and counterproductive...

There are few better ways to make the cartoon conservative conspiracy theorists case than to take words that already have neutral definitions and PC them up...


History is a cycle of revolution and counter-revolution..

Two steps forward and 1 steps back.

ANY thing that can even remotely be considered over reach will backfire on the initial revolution by multiples..

Often with little or no over reach at all, just the perception of such. So giving the yokel low hanging fruit to point to is just super silly..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

:lol: What desperation...

So I have given you the Britannica and Merriam Webster definitions, both of which you don't like...

a family consisting of two parents and their children, but not including aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.

NUCLEAR FAMILY | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

a basic social unit consisting of parents and their dependent children living in one household

Nuclear family definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

This just doesn't seem to stop! :lol:

Dude, debate better.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
According to the dictionary it does lol..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
"the' is the word here. How many definitions did you check to find that one?

You provided a single definition with a single source citation. Your sample size is a bit skimpy here. Just sayin.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I just posted you a definition by Merriam Webster that shows that it is not exclusive to your narrow view of it.

Debate better...
Click to expand...

No you posted a medical journal giving the psychology dept definition that also had a scientific name..

Here is websters’s dictionary definition:

Why is it Called the Nuclear Family? | Merriam-Webster


“: a family group that consists only of parents and children”

It does not specify, either way, but the examples sure do..

“The decline of the divorce rate in the 1950s owes to the idealization of the nuclear family, with rigid gender roles assigning women responsibility for staying home and raising children.”

Gets real specific there...


Here are its other potential definitions from the other main sources Webster’s considered credible..


“Medical Definition of nuclear family: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children”

“English Language Learners Definition of nuclear family : the part of a family that includes only the father, mother, and children


Here is from the next search return, but to be fair not the most credible name..lol but just going down the line..

Definition of a Nuclear Family | LoveToKnow

“The traditional definition of a nuclear family is a family unit that includes two married parents of opposite genders and their biological or adopted children living in the same residence. However, the term "nuclear family" can mean several things in today's society. Understanding the classic roles in this type of family and how it is defined can help you understand the relationships in your own family, whether it's nuclear or not.”


So keeping count, we have 3 that specify man and women..

And we have one that does not specify at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
btthegreat said:
"the' is the word here. How many definitions did you check to find that one?

You provided a single definition with a single source citation. Your sample size is a bit skimpy here. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

They are all the same and this is a ridiculously semantics argument off the muscle..

Either: “the family group included parents and children” which does not specify..

Or

“A family unit consisting of mother, father and children..”

The other poster posted a link saying the psychology association recently changed the definition.. but that also had a scientific name as well I think. So maybe they are not changing the definitions everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ecofarm said:
Few American conservatives see family and other social structures as blood loyalty.
Click to expand...

Falls under “protecting the traditions of the past or returning to some past era of previewed greatness”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
No you posted a medical journal giving the psychology dept definition that also had a scientific name..

Here is websters’s dictionary definition:

Why is it Called the Nuclear Family? | Merriam-Webster


“: a family group that consists only of parents and children”

It does not specify, either way, but the examples sure do..

“The decline of the divorce rate in the 1950s owes to the idealization of the nuclear family, with rigid gender roles assigning women responsibility for staying home and raising children.”

Gets real specific there...


Here are its other potential definitions from the other main sources Webster’s considered credible..


“Medical Definition of nuclear family: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children”

“English Language Learners Definition of nuclear family : the part of a family that includes only the father, mother, and children


Here is from the next search return, but to be fair not the most credible name..lol but just going down the line..

Definition of a Nuclear Family | LoveToKnow

“The traditional definition of a nuclear family is a family unit that includes two married parents of opposite genders and their biological or adopted children living in the same residence. However, the term "nuclear family" can mean several things in today's society. Understanding the classic roles in this type of family and how it is defined can help you understand the relationships in your own family, whether it's nuclear or not.”


So keeping count, we have 3 that specify man and women..

And we have one that does not specify at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No. What we have is four that do not constrain the definition to a man and a woman with their kids. They say parents because parents is not constrained to a mother and a father. I hate to burden you with more facts:

Parent:
a person who brings up and cares for another

Parent | Definition of Parent by Merriam-Webster

And if we break that down even further, a person is a man or a woman.

All of your medical versus psychology definition stuff is merely obfuscation.
 
btthegreat said:
"the' is the word here. How many definitions did you check to find that one?

You provided a single definition with a single source citation. Your sample size is a bit skimpy here. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why he is even trying to debate against the fact that a nuclear family definition, can change.

Here is an example of a definition CHANGING:

"In light of gay marriage being legalized in the UK, the Oxford English Dictionary editors are changing the definition of marriage."

The Oxford Dictionary Is Changing The Definition Of 'Marriage' To Include Gay Couples | Business Insider
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. What we have is four that do not constrain the definition to a man and a woman with their kids. They say parents because parents is not constrained to a mother and a father. I hate to burden you with more facts:

Parent:
a person who brings up and cares for another

Parent | Definition of Parent by Merriam-Webster

And if we break that down even further, a person is a man or a woman.

All of your medical versus psychology definition stuff is merely obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Oh no 3 of the 4 specify man and woman and the example of the one definition that did not specify, does in the example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Oh no 3 of the 4 specify man and woman and the example of the one definition that did not specify, does in the example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your comprehension problem is about... I posted, in quotes, the exact definition provided by the dictionary sources. All you did was show an example of what a nuclear family might be, that was given and that falls under the umbrella definition. The umbrella definition is the one that matters in this debate. A nuclear family is two parents and their kids... it can be a man and a woman but until you find a source saying that it CAN NOT be a man and a man or a woman and a woman, then you lose. :shrug:

Regardless... unless you have something new, this debate is over and I win.

No joke.

This is serious...
 
ArtemisBarca said:
They are all the same and this is a ridiculously semantics argument off the muscle..

Either: “the family group included parents and children” which does not specify..

Or

“A family unit consisting of mother, father and children..”

The other poster posted a link saying the psychology association recently changed the definition.. but that also had a scientific name as well I think. So maybe they are not changing the definitions everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Most likely. Its a pet peeve of mine because some social conservatives like to tell me what 'homophobia' means by cherry picking definition 4 of some dictionary which barely moves the needle from its greek word origin morphemes in 1969, as though lexographers have been sitting on their asses for the last 40 years, while the liberal elite deep state has engaged in a grand conspiracy to broaden it.

I just keep on fighting that battle over and over and over with lists of definitions from dictionary after dictionary until they shut up.

All us gay men of my age, are pretty secure we know what that term entails and how to use it properly. 'Fear of' my ass! I don't need to prove a panic attack at the sight of a man winking the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
I am not sure what your comprehension problem is about... I posted, in quotes, the exact definition provided by the dictionary sources. All you did was show an example of what a nuclear family might be, that was given and that falls under the umbrella definition... Regardless... unless you have something new, this debate is over and I win. No joke.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about ...

I copy pasted every definition from the merriments Webster’s website..

Then the next highest search return which was the “love to know” site..


The top definition of Webster’s just says “parents”..

However their example use of the word specifically says “strict gender roles”.



The other 2 definitions on that very same page you source, do specify mother and father..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
What are you talking about ...

I copy pasted every definition from the merriments Webster’s website..

Then the next highest search return which was the “love to know” site..


The top definition of Webster’s just says “parents”..

However their example use of the word specifically says “strict gender roles”.



The other 2 definitions on that very same page you source, do specify mother and father..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I already won this debate... what you should really be doing at this point is addressing your reading comprehension issues.
 
dixon01767 said:
Only men and women could create a nuclear family.
Click to expand...
Who says the nuclear family is desirable? It has been shown that extended families tend to give the best outcomes, due to providing a better allocation of resources (money does not have to be sacrificed to provide for childcare, additional adults living in the family provide more diversity in learning, as well as time to give to children).

Also, that is not true. Stepfamilies, adoptions, and now surrogacy, egg/sperm donations, IVF allow nuclear families to be created without biological parents being present.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
...and, there is reason 101 on why the nuclear family is obsolete. Stupid quaint concepts from the 1950's need to be erased from human memory..
Click to expand...

That's their goal. Replacing any reliance upon the family with reliance upon the government. Soon enough providing and caring for children will be the domain of single women with a heavy reliance upon government.
 
roguenuke said:
Who says the nuclear family is desirable?
Click to expand...

The statistics. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult when compared to children born to their married mother and father.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Instead of floundering about trying to play word games... state your argument or address mine.
Click to expand...

Which part didn't you understand?

Bodhisattva said:
Yes. We do have different opinions. My opinion is that people deserve equal rights and your opinion is that people do not.
Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:
No. Equal rights would involve discontinuing the discrimination between the married and unmarried. YOU are speaking of UNEQUAL rights by design. Both between the married and unmarried, AND those excluded from marriage and those who are not. Whats your justification for this purposeful discrimination?
Click to expand...

Then you went of on some tangent about when you speak of "Unequal rights" when you haven't spoken of unequal rights. Probably because you couldn't come up with any justification for the purposeful discrimination in the law you advocate.
 
dixon01767 said:
Which part didn't you understand?





Then you went of on some tangent about when you speak of "Unequal rights" when you haven't spoken of unequal rights. Probably because you couldn't come up with any justification for the purposeful discrimination in the law you advocate.
Click to expand...

What laws of discrimination are you making up now... :lol:
 
dixon01767 said:
What part didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

All of it... probably because your use of English sucks and the posts you are quoting do not seem to go together.


I asked you what laws of discrimination are you making up that I supposedly advocate and you respond with "Both between the married and unmarried, AND those excluded from marriage and those who are not." and you ask me why I don't understand you? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom