http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/16/theres-no-way-you-can-have-a-family-with-two-females-or-two-males Comments On: "There's no way you can have a family with two females or two males." by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 09:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:48:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by gromm]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:31:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sirkowski]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:49:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by vennominon]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:17:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Peter Kovalsky]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:13:16 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:09:28 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:47:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:12:20 -0800 The Stranger
It's nice to finally be on the winning side of equality. Which states are next? Come on, Wisco!
Posted by The fag]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:59:22 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Hanoumatoi]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:54:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by We Can't wait to see the look on Pat Robertson's face...]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:49:27 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:45:15 -0800 The Stranger
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:21:54 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:09:06 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rob!]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:33:37 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/14/165140583/…
Posted by rob!]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:31:09 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:30:50 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.ladyaurora.net/

http://www.victoriarage.com/

Support your local businesses! ! !
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:29:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by this guy I know in Spokane]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:28:47 -0800 The Stranger
...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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:25:46 -0800 The Stranger concubines as well.
Let's go back to that tradition!
Posted by treacle]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:23:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pope Peabrain]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:16:16 -0800 The Stranger
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]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:13:35 -0800 The Stranger