Alaska Darin Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yes Progressive! Yeah, I love buzzwords too. Especially the ones that are oxymoronic. And popular! N'Sync was really popular too. They also sucked. Popularity, especially when it comes to politics, generally is the road to ruin. But you liberals are wicked smart, just ask another liberal. I forgot that was one of the words the far right wing media chose to demonize and the faithful picked up on it like a bad case of poison ivy. Yeah, that vile boogieman, the right wing media that controls what 10% of the medium? Those evil bastards. Anyone wonder why it's so easy for these two parties to recruit? BTW, how's that Social Security 'reform' going? 819814[/snapback] Steaming toward the bankruptcy that been on track for since its inception. I sure hope you and the rest of the "intellectuals" are still around when it happens, so you can try and figure out who's to blame while continuing to ignore the facts that are so very obvious to anyone who can balance a checkbook. Sell stupid somewhere else. We got more parrots than a South American jungle here already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If marriage needs to be defended, shouldn't divorce be against the law? Until divorce is against the law - somebody splain how allowing more people to marry is against marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What about kids being raised by the state, or by foster parents, or by one parent who has to work three jobs? Tell me, does one benefit more from any of these than from two parents who genuinely want a kid? And don't give me some BS answer like "yes, all kids should be raised by two married hetero parents." Give me a serious answer, and qualify it with something other than circular logic. I think if potential adoptees can prove that they can raise and support their kid and give them a loving and caring and safe environment, it doesn't matter what their orientation is. It's far better than a kid being in a home where the parent doesn't want him/her. Try living in reality. Puh-leeeze. 819193[/snapback] Obviously this isn't a black and white issue, and there are differing degrees of good and bad situations for a child. I feel that two heterosexual parents represent a greater degree of goodness than two homosexual parents. There are a number of reasons for this; one of which is that it's good for children to see healthy interaction between a man and a woman. Are there worse situations than homosexual adoption? Absolutely, as you alluded to in your post. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual adoption is the same as heterosexual adoption. It isn't, and we shouldn't put a gay rights agenda ahead of the well-being of children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Obviously this isn't a black and white issue, and there are differing degrees of good and bad situations for a child. I feel that two heterosexual parents represent a greater degree of goodness than two homosexual parents. There are a number of reasons for this; one of which is that it's good for children to see healthy interaction between a man and a woman. Are there worse situations than homosexual adoption? Absolutely, as you alluded to in your post. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual adoption is the same as heterosexual adoption. It isn't, and we shouldn't put a gay rights agenda ahead of the well-being of children. 821781[/snapback] I love the idea of "homosexual adoption," as if any adoption has anything to do with sexual relationships. If the worry is that oversexed people will adopt, I've got news for you, there are a few among them filing for "heterosexual adoptions." You also speak as if all hetero families show "healthy interaction between a man and a woman." They don't, hence the 50% divorce rate. Regardless, there are examples of hetero relationships working out all around that I'm sure it won't be lost on a kid whose parents are gay. Studies have shown it's no more likely that an adopted child of gay parents will be gay, and certainly kids even in these situations have grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, other examples in which they'll see this healthy interaction they so desparately need. My point is, if you can't legislate against a single parent household happening (and you shouldn't be able to), how can you legislate against a two-parent household where the parents happen to be of the same sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I feel that two heterosexual parents represent a greater degree of goodness than two homosexual parents. 821781[/snapback] tell that to thailog's kids, dipshit. But they were obviously more "good" than 2 loving caring gay parents, because they were heterosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Obviously this isn't a black and white issue, and there are differing degrees of good and bad situations for a child. I feel that two heterosexual parents represent a greater degree of goodness than two homosexual parents. There are a number of reasons for this; one of which is that it's good for children to see healthy interaction between a man and a woman. Are there worse situations than homosexual adoption? Absolutely, as you alluded to in your post. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual adoption is the same as heterosexual adoption. It isn't, and we shouldn't put a gay rights agenda ahead of the well-being of children. 821781[/snapback] Goodness? Care to point to the study showing that heterosexual parents have a greater degree of "goodness" than homosexual parents? These debates are laughable. Real, actual studies have shown that there isn't any difference. Let's not cloud the issue with fake studies based on unquantifiable factors and moral biases. Let's just call it what it is...bigotry and homophobia. Don't use your faux concern for "the children" as a human shield for your hatred. Your bigotry-ness is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Coli, goodness is an honest-to-goodness quantifiable statistic, just like hit points and charisma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Coli, goodness is an honest-to-goodness quantifiable statistic, just like hit points and charisma. 821911[/snapback] ask holcombs arm, i'm sure him and kurt has some formula to calculate goodness in their genocide manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Coli, goodness is an honest-to-goodness quantifiable statistic, just like hit points and charisma. 821911[/snapback] His morality is right off the charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 His morality is right off the charts. 821923[/snapback] He was just lucky he rolled an 18, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Obviously this isn't a black and white issue, and there are differing degrees of good and bad situations for a child. I feel that two heterosexual parents represent a greater degree of goodness than two homosexual parents. There are a number of reasons for this; one of which is that it's good for children to see healthy interaction between a man and a woman. Are there worse situations than homosexual adoption? Absolutely, as you alluded to in your post. But we shouldn't pretend that homosexual adoption is the same as heterosexual adoption. It isn't, and we shouldn't put a gay rights agenda ahead of the well-being of children. 821781[/snapback] What about interracial parents? Are they better or worse than homosexual ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 What about interracial parents? Are they better or worse than homosexual ones? 821936[/snapback] Let's break out the "goodness" chart and see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Let's break out the "goodness" chart and see... 821945[/snapback] Don't forget, they get +3 if their elves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Don't forget, they get +3 if their elves... 821961[/snapback] If Kurt doesn't like interracial parents, imagine what he thinks of interspecies parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If Kurt doesn't like interracial parents, imagine what he thinks of interspecies parents. 821978[/snapback] Half elves: ruining the pedigree of the elven gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 While I don't mean to interrupt the 10th Annual Mutual Admiration Society's Circle Jerk and Pancake Breakfast (although I believe someone did ask me to come and give a doomsday prediction and I hate to disappoint), let's please remember that reasonable people can disagree. Or is the suppression of dissent only limited to the fascist right and not the fascist left? Same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone? Fundamentally changing the structure of the family unit doesn't have wide-ranging societal consequences? And how far are you willing to go? Have same-sex-marriage advocates said too much? As gay marriage gains acceptance, we’re going to have a polygamy-polyamory debate in this country. And among those sponsoring that debate will be many of the very same people and groups who’ve already pushed for same-sex marriage. “So why haven’t we told you all this before? Simple. We’ve been censoring ourselves for fear of scaring away public support for same-sex marriage. You see, it’s all about timing. Our plan is to establish same-sex marriage first, and then, as our next step, to demand that the rights and benefits of marriage be accorded to all types of families. After all, when the call for yet another radical redefinition of marriage comes from married same-sex couples, it’s going to be that much more persuasive. Up to now, truth to tell, if any same-sex marriage backers pushed this radical agenda in public, we pressured them to keep silent. But now we’re telling you the truth. “You see, despite what you’ve heard about the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage, the more radical argument that ‘love makes a family’ has played a huge role in the success of the drive for same-sex marriage. And the ‘love makes a family’ idea requires recognition, not only for gay couples, but also for polygamous and polyamorous families. “And consider the complex families created when three or even four gay men and lesbians combine through, say, artificial insemination, to bear and raise children. We want recognition for these sorts of unconventional families too, even — or especially — if such recognition leads to legalized polyamory. Pretending that certain aspects of the gay community don’t exist only weakens our diverse families. The way we live is the way we live. Up to now, we’ve tried to hide it. But at last we’re ready to own up to reality, and to push for legal recognition for all types of families, even if that expands the definition of marriage until the very idea of marriage itself is stripped of meaning.” Beyond Same-Sex Marriage For all practical purposes, this confession has already been offered. A good part of the substance of the above message was conveyed this past July, when hundreds of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers released a manifesto entitled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” Among other things, that statement called for recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” That hundreds of gay-marriage supporters, including big names like Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, Rabbi Michael Lerner (of Tikkun Magazine), and Barbara Ehrenreich have signed onto a statement openly demanding recognition for polyamorous families is important enough. But the really big news is what’s been happening in the months since the release of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement. The ongoing discussion of that manifesto on popular blogs, and particularly in the gay community’s own press, confirms that even many prominent mainstream advocates of same-sex marriage support a radical family agenda — and plan to push it when the time is right. In other words, a careful look at the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement — and especially at its public reception — indicates that the above “confession” does in fact represent the plans and convictions of the greater part of the movement for same-sex marriage. The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement is nothing if not radical. It calls for extending government recognition beyond traditional married couples to groups of senior citizens living together, extended immigrant households, single parent households, “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple in two households,” unmarried domestic partners, polygamous/polyamorous households, and many other diverse family forms. And although the statement advocates moving “beyond” same-sex marriage, it also clearly endorses gay marriage itself. The argument on offer is that same-sex marriage is, and ought to be, only one part of a larger effort to redefine our idea of the family. So in contrast to the “conservative” argument, which holds that gay marriage will strengthen the unique appeal of marriage itself, the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement claims that gay marriage is a critical step in a larger evolution away from the preference for any specific family form. In other words, the sponsors of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage hope to dissolve marriage, not through formal abolition, but by gradually extending the hitherto unique notion of marriage to every conceivable family type. The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement has attracted hundreds of signatures from a wide array of prominent figures. In addition to national liberals like Steinem, West, Lerner, and Ehrenreich, over 90 professors have signed on, a great many from top schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the University of Chicago, Columbia, Georgetown, Brown, Cornell, Williams, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Barnard, the University of Pennsylvania, NYU, Dartmouth, and U.C. Berkeley. Quite a few of these schools had more than one faculty member sign on. Popular writers like Terrence McNally, Armistead Maupin, and Susie Bright joined big-name academics like Judith Stacey and Judith Butler on the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage lists. Quite a few professors from top law schools (e.g., Yale, Columbia, Georgetown) also endorsed the statement. So we are not talking about fringe figures here. The Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was put forward by a large and prestigious slice of activists, artists, and intellectuals on the cultural Left. I hope all those mental pats on the back you give yourselves and each other for being so tolerant and enlightened are worth it. And believe me, for my children's sake I hope you're right, that this 'social experiment' will prove a rousing success and society is the better off for it (although I did find it funny that some of the most vocal on this thread, all blown up in full condescending glory, are themselves childless, thereby removing much of the risk of failed social experimentation from their own personal equations, but I digress) because I most certainly want my kids to grow up in a happy and healthy society, but I must admit to having some doubts. Feel free to now patronize me and chide me for being ignorant and bigoted. I now return you to the 10th Annual Mutual Admiration Society's Circle Jerk and Pancake breakfast ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I now return you to the 10th Annual Mutual Admiration Society's Circle Jerk and Pancake breakfast ... 822081[/snapback] Hey, how did you get to MC the breakfast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 While I don't mean to interrupt the 10th Annual Mutual Admiration Society's Circle Jerk and Pancake Breakfast (although I believe someone did ask me to come and give a doomsday prediction and I hate to disappoint), let's please remember that reasonable people can disagree. Or is the suppression of dissent only limited to the fascist right and not the fascist left? 822081[/snapback] Of course, the whole problem with that article is that they assume the public will follow what a few people with an extreme view of marriage believe. I don't buy the slippery slope argument for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And how far are you willing to go? 822081[/snapback] If reasonable people disagreeing means that the rights of some people are trampled, then it's not reasonable. I'm willing to go as far as saying a stable partnership of two people can be marired and adopt a kid, and that's it. Anything else can be pretty much proven to be statistically far less stable, with or without kids. I'm with BlueFire. Not buying the slippery slope argument for even a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone? Fundamentally changing the structure of the family unit doesn't have wide-ranging societal consequences? 822081[/snapback] How is the "family unit" getting fundamentally changed? I think just about everybody can agree that two loving parents are better than just a single parent. Does the math fundamentally change when the parents are same-sex? And how far are you willing to go? 822081[/snapback] Ah, the "slippery slope" argument. This, of course, is dependent on the idea that gay people are all sex-crazy hedonsists jumping at the chance to have sex with anything that moves, species-be-damned. They certainly can't be trusted to form monogomous, committed, loving relationships like straight people can. Do you even know any gay people? If you did, you'd find the same ratio of deviants in the gay community as that of the straight community. If you actually spoke with a gay person, you'd also find that they frown upon the very same practices that the majority of straight people do...well, those that aren't homophobes. I hope all those mental pats on the back you give yourselves and each other for being so tolerant and enlightened are worth it. And believe me, for my children's sake I hope you're right, that this 'social experiment' will prove a rousing success and society is the better off for it (although I did find it funny that some of the most vocal on this thread, all blown up in full condescending glory, are themselves childless, thereby removing much of the risk of failed social experimentation from their own personal equations, but I digress) because I most certainly want my kids to grow up in a happy and healthy society, but I must admit to having some doubts. Feel free to now patronize me and chide me for being ignorant and bigoted. 822081[/snapback] We've had gay marriage in Mass for over two years now. The people who are against it are dwindling in numbers because, surprise, nothing's changed. I'm married, and plan on having several children in the next few years. I hope that when they see two gay men or gay women walking down the street with their own children that they see a family, and not look at them as a "social experiment" like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts