I think it has something to do with this:



Which was then followed by you saying:




You just must've skipped that line when you agreed with Myrkr!

THANK YOU!

I don't think you can compare animal "families" to human ones. They are more like tribes than families.

Religion also predates written history btw.


Also, for the polymorphism analogy, I think you are confusing religion in general, with a specific religion.

That is, its not a question of a specific religion that creates the family. Its the greater concept of religious bonds and purposes that define the family.

What the family structure is like, is greatly dependent on the type of religion the family comes from.

Starting?


The state has a duty of care to all parentless kiddos.



Yes, but with most of them, they're just batshit crazy and the vast bulk of them use it as a platform to spew their self righteous crap across people who don't want to hear it and don't bloody care while they tell themselves JUST HOW SPECIAL THEY ARE FOR CARING ABOUT THE EARTH OH LOOK AT ME AREN'T IW ONDERFUL YOU YES YOU EVIL POLLUTER STOP I WILL STOP YOU WITH JUSTICE IN THE NAME OF MOTHER EARTH! GAIA GRANT ME STRENGTH.

Bloody hell.



Try repeating in your best "big deep and extra hardcore" voice "WITCHCRAFT AND HERESY." where a priest can hear you. It's hilarious. Especially when you're talking about Warhammer 40000. Well, not hilarious, but you will get a lecture on accepting everyone and that heresy, even the Cathar, or Free Spirit, can be forgiven.



Not all of them. Some leave the kids as soon as they're born, some before, some shortly after. And some form tribes and family groups.

Ahh, indeed I did skip that line! I thought it was just another example of a popular American holiday with pagan origins, of which I do not celebrate. (I thought the point had something to do with the fact that we have nationalized religious holidays)

I'd like to point out I don't sound like a Captain Planet groupie with a pole the length of the Eiffel Tower shoved up my butt. Thank you, and please, come again.

Could have fooled me. it's usually the first thing out of most of their mouths. "I AM PAGAN. YOU'RE JUST WRONG. LISTEN TO ME."

Nicest guy I have ever met was one, though. Go look up the death metal band Mortal Sin - "Nathan Shea" Goes to a netcafe and spends a lot of time there, owns a record store and doesn't mention it even when that sort of thing comes up in conversation. I checked out some old interviews - never came up. Ever. So over 23 years, he never really talked about it. Compared to ones you normally find, bellowing at the top of their lungs how we'er all horrible. Funnily enough, they seem to drop it after a year or two.

Have you never heard of the concept of Marketing?

"Gee Father, how do we market to Pagans?"

"Well this Mithrac cult looks good lets go with some of that and convert some warriors."

I'm not fighting for all of them.

I'm fighting for myself.

I'm not a jerk, I'd like to believe. I don't think I'm always right. I have on numerous occasions admitted when I was wrong, or when I simply did not know.

And I've been a Pagan since I was 12.

Now, we're getting off topic. Back on topic...

... what were we talking about again?

shrooms?

Right! Right. Shrooms!

Another name for Fly Agaric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

Strawman? Missing the point? Irrelevant to the conversation?

Not sure which is more appropriate.

Adoption usually implies the child has no family, and therefore needs to be adopted...

The reason the state is involved with adoption is for the safety of the children, and to monitor the organizations that handle it. The churches and however many other dozens of organizations can't just run about declaring themselves legally responsible for kids whenever they please.

How's it irrelevant? How does it miss the point? It is the point, IMO. It pretty much echoes my viewpoints on the issue anyway.

This is, at times, because the legal systems take a hold of children from their families. Why? Because the legal system says, "The people who they live with currently shouldn't be considered a family."

In which case, the child becomes family-less, and in need of a family.


Felt I should point that out.

I'm not sure how that goes counter to my point at all. Not even sure it was supposed to! But if the legal system takes someone out, seems reasonable that they should place them.

Wasn't a counter at all!

I was just adding onto it. I don't know. Felt it should be pointed out.

Edit: Really, it was an expansion on what you said.

Normally (well historically) Churches have been involved in adoptions because a person leaves a baby on their doorstep, with a note saying "I can not take care of this child, please find someone who can, or raise them yourselves." If the state removed a person from a family, then they would be taking care of the adoption, not a third party organization.