I'm fine with your explanation. If, as you say you're not a Santorum guy, there is more benefit than harm in your viewpoint. (To me, of course, in my subjective viewpoint.)

The struggle I have is that, politically, Santorum counts you as a win. He'll point to any number of useless polls showing that most Americans support the traditional family structure as best for America. No big deal, so far. He willfully ignores your follow-on that you're not interested in public policy changes. He then carries that forward to the FMA and his Christian God in government and so on.

His unwillingness to see such nuances is what makes Santorum dangerous.

I should start off by saying that I'm not a Santorum guy. I'm not advocating for public policy changes based upon my view of what a family is. I understand that other people feel differently. I don't "disregard" your definition of family; I just have a different view.

Basically, if you are an individual, you are part of society, but you are not a family. Families are stronger than individuals. Don't believe me? Wait 'til you get old. You'll see, when you need somebody to take care of you and wipe your ass! If a couple does not have kids, they are a "couple without kids." "Family" involves children.

[Kip interjects: Does that mean I have a "duty" to wipe my parents' asses? How is that more reasonable than imposing a duty on my parents to adequately prepare for their own old age (e.g., having the resources to hire professionals to wipe their asses for them)?]

I don't mind that you don't agree with my definition of family, but what I'm aiming for is a support structure. That's where I think Santorum's definition (and yours) is lacking. If you disregard my understanding of family, that brings us back to my orginial statement. With man, woman, and child the only acceptable manner, I'm not part of the foundation of society. Where do I fit in?

What if I get married? Do I have to have a child before I become a family? What if one member of the family is unable to conceive? Do they not constitute a family? Should they be allowed to marry, since apparently they're not part of the foundation supporting America?

As you responded to J Philip, if only gay marriage is bad for society, but my definition is not a family, where does that leave us? Santorum ultimately wants his conservatism to dictate public policy. That leaves those of us who don't fit his mold where exactly? Wwhat are the public policy implicatioons? Specifically, how does individual liberty address that worse?

P.S. I'm not going to go into the same-sex marriage debate as to why it's reasonable for two men (or two women) to marry because Kip's done it much better than I could. That also applies to the "10 wives" argument.

I didn't mean to imply that we haven't heard from Santorum. By quiet, I meant not visibly "off his rocker."

You disagree that what is good for society? Gay marriage, an expanded interpretation of family, or both? Please clarify.

Appearances -wise, I am Santorum's wet dream. I am conservative, catholic, pro-life, and married with three children. I am also self employed. But I think Tony's definition of family is quite valid. A society where everything is a sanitized, family friendly Chuckee Cheez may be what Santorum says he wants, but I think he's just appeasing the religious zealots.

Individuals who don't want to marry have every right not to. That's really all I can say.

A family is man, woman and child. You and your girlfriend are a "couple." Though you guys may be cool, you're not a family. You are a couple with friends. (Kinda like the show, "Friends.")

My definition of family does not accept same sex marriages. I have yet to find someone who can explain to me that men should be able to marry men just because they have a sexual preference for each other. I'm fine with civil unions. And don't reply that it's about "liberty." Should I have the liberty to take 10 wives??? If so, my wife's gonna be pissed, cuz it's about to get crowded in our bed! If not, why??

I don't say this in hatred at all either. I have gay couple friends. I just disagree that it's good for society.

That said, Bombsoverbaghdad, what about the individuals who don't wish to marry and have families? I understand the ability to say individuals are still part of society. It's just that forwarding the notion that the family is the foundation of society, as Santorum does, is silly. I think it gets to the idea that morals and "good citizenship" fall apart without the family structure. I don't like the underlying notion that left to their own free will, people will become selfish, uncaring, immoral, etc. It makes no sense.

I could accept a small portion of the family as foundation idea if it meant self-created family. I live with my girlfriend on the same street as my brother. We have a circle of friends large enough to balance our need for social interaction/intellectual stimulation. Absent marriage and kids, they're our family. I can accept the idea that my definition of family is valuable to a functioning society because humans are social creatures.

But that is not what Santorum is promoting and it's an important distinction. My definition accepts my choice of a non-marital relationship and same-sex marriage. Neither will cause the downfall of society, but Santorum believes it will. My "public policy" involves no government preference or involvement. Santorum's would be public policy (and legislation and Constitutional amendments).

Santorum is the anti-Dean: he goes around being calm, soft-spoken and philosophical in an attempt to conceal his real agenda by cloaking it with labels like "compassionate."