-
SCOTUS to hear gay marriage cases
-
And add Illinois!
Unfortunately, Illinois’ passage of a marriage equality statute led to God’s wrath in the form of deadly tornadoes. God is such an a**hole when he’s mad.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-tornadoes-gay-marriage-_n_4309957.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-tornadoes-gay-marriage-_n_4309957.html[/link]
Robert Ritchie, Executive Director of America Needs Fatima, a project of the right-wing American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, has linked the deadly tornadoes to Illnois’ approval of same-sex marriage earlier this month.
“The massive tornadoes that hit Illinois after the passing of the same sex marriage bill, has stimulated many people to reflection.
In it, some see Gods chastisement; others see it as yet one more merciful warning from Providence; others yet deny both options and give various reasons.”-
Quote from dergon
And add Illinois!
Unfortunately, Illinois’ passage of a marriage equality statute led to God’s wrath in the form of deadly tornadoes. God is such an a**hole when he’s mad.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-tornadoes-gay-marriage-_n_4309957.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/illinois-tornadoes-gay-marriage-_n_4309957.html[/link]
Robert Ritchie, Executive Director of America Needs Fatima, a project of the right-wing American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, has linked the deadly tornadoes to Illnois’ approval of same-sex marriage earlier this month.
“The massive tornadoes that hit Illinois after the passing of the same sex marriage bill, has stimulated many people to reflection.
In it, some see Gods chastisement; others see it as yet one more merciful warning from Providence; others yet deny both options and give various reasons.”He’s in charge of [i]”the right-wing American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property”[/i], huh? Does that mean how’s also in favor of the traditions of slavery, higher wages for men, taking away female voting, making interracial marriage illegal…?
How do such primates get airplay?
-
Oklahoma – nice
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/20/national_guard_benefits_oklahoma_gov_mary_fallin_denies_benefits_to_all.html]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/20/national_guard_benefits_oklahoma_gov_mary_fallin_denies_benefits_to_all.html[/link]
Republican Governor Denies Benefits to All Soldiers to Discriminate Against Gay Ones[/h1]
When Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin was sworn into office, she [link=http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/13/138979/oklahoma-governor-offend-constitution/]promised in her oath[/link] to offend the Constitution of the United States. Many at the time assumed it was a blunder. But as it turns out, Gov. Fallin is true to her word.In September, Fallin [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/23/the_national_guard_revives_doma_to_deny_benefits_to_gay_couples.html]vowed[/link] to prohibit Oklahomas National Guard from providing benefits to married same-sex couples, directly violating a [link=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/14/211978987/pentagon-details-plan-to-extend-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses]Pentagon directive[/link] and a[link=http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/obama-directs-federal-government-to-give-gay-couples-equal-v]presidential decree[/link]. Now, after a [link=http://www.npr.org/2013/11/01/242385762/pentagon-pushes-states-on-benefits-for-same-sex-couples]Pentagon pushback[/link], Fallin has [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/19/2970531/oklahoma-national-guard/]doubled down[/link], cutting spousal benefits for the entire Oklahoma National Guard, including straight couples. The Republican governor, in other words, would rather deny every soldier benefits than grant a few gay ones the rights they have been federally guaranteed. Her painfully mangled logic:
[blockquote]”Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.”[/blockquote]
Not to harp on the point, but this notion is so deliriously erroneous, so undeniably and doltishly wrong, that I cant quite believe Fallin believes it herself. The militarys policy of providing spousal benefits to same-sex couples is not a gentle suggestion. It is a federal mandate, prompted by the president himself, extending from the Pentagon to each (federally funded, federally supervised) National Guard base. It doesnt matter whether the policy violates Oklahomas constitution: The Constitution of the United States [link=http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi]declares in Article VI[/link] that the laws of the United States … shall be the supreme law of the land, regardless of the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary. By presidential decree, the laws of the United States now require spousal benefits for gay soldiers; following that order is a constitutional requirement. And the federal constitution is not something a state governor can simply toss aside when it doesnt suit her viciously homophobic beliefs.
Fallin, however, isnt alone in her crusade of unconstitutional bigotry. Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia have [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/11/19/texas-national-guard-refuses-to-process-military-housing-allowance-for-gay-couples/]all resisted[/link] the new policy as well, citing similar (and similarly fatuous) concerns about their anti-gay state constitutions. Im not sure what these states excuse isaside from virulent, unpatriotic prejudicebut at least Oklahoma has a defense to fall back on. The state elected a governor who, on her very first day in office, swore to offend the United States constitution. We can fault Fallin for many things. But we certainly cant accuse her of going back on her word.
-
hopefully the people of Oklahoma pay attention and make Fallin a 1 term’r. I can’t imagine it’s the will of the people of Oklahoma to pick on the armed forces.
-
[link=http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/breaking-federal-judge-strikes-down-utahs-antipolygamy-law,52abe3ae025312186c9ff4d4]http://m.thenewcivilright…abe3ae025312186c9ff4d4[/link]
A federal judge strikes down Utah’s anti-polygamy statute.
The link above site some interesting differences between the gay rights and equality movement for marriage and the polygamists’ privacy argument for marriage.
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://m.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thenewcivilrights/#!/entry/breaking-federal-judge-strikes-down-utahs-antipolygamy-law,52abe3ae025312186c9ff4d4]http://m.thenewcivilright…abe3ae025312186c9ff4d4[/link]
A federal judge strikes down Utah’s anti-polygamy statute.
The link above site some interesting differences between the gay rights and equality movement for marriage and the polygamists’ privacy argument for marriage.
I think there’s some issues with some of the polygamy compounds where they arrange like marriages to child brides etc… Other than that if it’s consenting adults I don’t see the big deal if that’s how they want to swing. I remember talking about polygamy in a history class in high school. When the teacher asked how many people think it would be cool to have more than one wife I remember a lot of guys raising their hand, not all though. Then came the question about why you wouldn’t want to have more than wife. Answer: you can’t afford it.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Then came the question about why you wouldn’t want to have more than wife. Answer: you can’t afford it.
My wife is a professional who pulls more than her own weight financially. She has complained before that what she was missing relative to her male colleagues was ‘a stay at home wife’. Someone who picks up the drycleanimg, cooks and attends the PTA meetings. I explained the opportunities in the utah ruling to her but didn’t get any buy-in 😉
Polygamy is not a mormon invention, i can see the economics of it being solid if some of the wives are working. Considering the number of single women who go to fertility clinics to have kids with anonymous donors or through the babydaddy system, I could see a market for this kind of thing.
Utah passed these laws in order to become part of the US. Now that gay marriage is legal, there is really no coherent argument against it.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Then came the question about why you wouldn’t want to have more than wife. Answer: you can’t afford it.
My wife is a professional who pulls more than her own weight financially. She has complained before that what she was missing relative to her male colleagues was ‘a stay at home wife’. Someone who picks up the drycleanimg, cooks and attends the PTA meetings. I explained the opportunities in the utah ruling to her but didn’t get any buy-in 😉
Polygamy is not a mormon invention, i can see the economics of it being solid if some of the wives are working. Considering the number of single women who go to fertility clinics to have kids with anonymous donors or through the babydaddy system, I could see a market for this kind of thing.
Utah passed these laws in order to become part of the US. Now that gay marriage is legal, there is really no coherent argument against it.
Polygamy runs rampant in the Old and New Testament, and no respectable figure in all those words preaches against it. As far as anyone can tell, “polygamy” is no less worthy of being a tenet of Christianity than “turning the other cheek”.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Then came the question about why you wouldn’t want to have more than wife. Answer: you can’t afford it.
My wife is a professional who pulls more than her own weight financially. She has complained before that what she was missing relative to her male colleagues was ‘a stay at home wife’. Someone who picks up the drycleanimg, cooks and attends the PTA meetings. I explained the opportunities in the utah ruling to her but didn’t get any buy-in 😉
Polygamy is not a mormon invention, i can see the economics of it being solid if some of the wives are working. Considering the number of single women who go to fertility clinics to have kids with anonymous donors or through the babydaddy system, I could see a market for this kind of thing.
Utah passed these laws in order to become part of the US. Now that gay marriage is legal, there is really no coherent argument against it.
Polygamy runs rampant in the Old and New Testament, and no respectable figure in all those words preaches against it. As far as anyone can tell, “polygamy” is no less worthy of being a tenet of Christianity than “turning the other cheek”.
Statements like these are why most people don’t take you seriously. “As far as anyone can tell”? I mean, seriously, dude
dergs, you referred to me earlier but didn’t say anything … what’s your understanding of my position(s)?-
Quote from Cigar
dergs, you referred to me earlier but didn’t say anything … what’s your understanding of my position(s)?
From your posts earlier in this thread I would take your opinions to be:
a) Homosexual behavior is abnormal
b) Marriage is not a right
c) Homosexuals already receive equal treatment under the law
d) Government should favor heterosexual marriage
&
e) (only implied by your use of the descriptor “these so-called gays”) you have some kind of hostility or suspicion to the gay community, feeling that is may be not be what it appears? -
a) needs to be a discussion with defined terms
b) i don’t believe in “rights” particularly the way people use them, and definitely not the way “progressives” use them
c) yes, homosexuals do receive equal treatment currently
d) any argument from any angle except for extreme, unconditional liberty including biology, history and society supports this
I’m confused why “scientitsts” don’t see this
e) I have no hostility nor ill will towards anyone
but I care about honesty, both intellectual and discursive and most importantly I care about the truth otherwise we’ll all be under the spell of delusion
sadly, this delusion is only growing -
Quote from Cigar
c) yes, homosexuals do receive equal treatment currentlyClearly they don’t receive equal treatment. That’s the main gist of this thread. Look at any state that doesn’t allow same-sex marriage.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Cigar
c) yes, homosexuals do receive equal treatment currentlyClearly they don’t receive equal treatment. That’s the main gist of this thread. Look at any state that doesn’t allow same-sex marriage.
If you don’t agree, at least have an open enough mind to think about how the other side *might* think or develop an argument. The irony is that this is extremely difficult, most difficult for those that outwardly shout and proclaim how open minded they are, when they are actually the least (not accusing you, definitely accusing so called “progressives”)
This exercise will do a lot for you regarding bias, arguments and even self delusion -
Quote from Cigar
If you don’t agree, at least have an open enough mind to think about how the other side *might* think or develop an argument. The irony is that this is extremely difficult, most difficult for those that outwardly shout and proclaim how open minded they are, when they are actually the least (not accusing you, definitely accusing so called “progressives”)
This exercise will do a lot for you regarding bias, arguments and even self delusion
I don’t see any [b]BOLD TYPE ARGUMENTS[/b] or exclamations from either Dergon or Dan so no one is shouting.
The question is why should LGBT people be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else, or to rephrase, what is the rationale to deny marriage and it’s accompanying legal rights to LGBT couples?
What are your arguments to exclude LGBT people? -
My response to cigar was meant to be a civil and was my best attempt at an actual analysis of his beliefs. I also feel that his response to me was civil and open as well.
We at least seem to gotten past “light in the loafers” anti-gay slurs and other overtly hostile commentary.
-
Quote from dergon
My response to cigar was meant to be a civil and was my best attempt at an actual analysis of his beliefs. I also feel that his response to me was civil and open as well.
We at least seem to gotten past “light in the loafers” anti-gay slurs and other overtly hostile commentary.
Indeed it was, and I appreciate your honesty and sentiment.
I never made anti-gay “slurs” as far as I am aware, though I don’t think you are saying I did, the close link in sentences seems to suggest so. Again, I’m all for dialogue
and [Frumious] I never accused anyone of shouting or otherwise (as I said I do accuse “progressives” generally of this, yes). I hope that your reaction to nothing of substance doesn’t mean you are reactionary, as I’ve found this is very typical of both extreme conservatives and liberals alike.
-
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Then came the question about why you wouldn’t want to have more than wife. Answer: you can’t afford it.
My wife is a professional who pulls more than her own weight financially. She has complained before that what she was missing relative to her male colleagues was ‘a stay at home wife’. Someone who picks up the drycleanimg, cooks and attends the PTA meetings. I explained the opportunities in the utah ruling to her but didn’t get any buy-in 😉
Polygamy is not a mormon invention, i can see the economics of it being solid if some of the wives are working. Considering the number of single women who go to fertility clinics to have kids with anonymous donors or through the babydaddy system, I could see a market for this kind of thing.
Utah passed these laws in order to become part of the US. Now that gay marriage is legal, there is really no coherent argument against it.
I’m not trying to imply women don’t work or earn money but more like imagine going to the jewler store for Christmas and needing to buy for more than one woman, that’s going to add up. Hence most men probably can’t probably afford to have more than one wife. Or even if you had multiple kids with multiple women. The cost to raise a kid is substantial.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
…Hence most men probably can’t probably afford to have more than one wife. Or even if you had multiple kids with multiple women. The cost to raise a kid is substantial.
Maybe, just maybe, that could be the incentive many of us need to start giving the gift of “love” which doesn’t cost a red cent!!
Perhaps the failure of so many marriages in this country is partly due to how complacent so many of us have become in thinking we can get by with simply spending a few hundred bucks on a gift so that we can wait an entire year before having to again acknowledge those who are supposed to be the closest to us.
I think Mormons figured that out a long time ago.
-
yes to me a gift doesn’t mean a lot; my wife and I have taken to exchanging letters detailing appreciation for the other to supplement the almost meaningless present
take on polygamy by University of Rochester econ prof Landsburg:
“One argument thats often made against legalized polygamy is that rich old men will marry lots of women, leaving lots of poor young men both single and sexually frustrated-and thats bad, because poor young single sexually frustrated men are prone to criminal acts of violence.
Over at [link=http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/polygamy-hypocrisy.html]Overcoming Bias[/link], Robin Hanson objects that if people really believed this argument, theyd want to criminalize lesbianism and extramarital affairs, both of which also contribute to the problem of men-without-partners.
But I think one could consistently take the position that while lesbianism contributes to the problem, its just not widespread enough to be worth stamping out, while polygamy (if legal) might well become so. And as far as extramarital affairs, I think Robin has it completely backward: When the wife of a 30 year old man (who is well past the prime age of violence) has an extramarital affair with an 18 year old, she is alleviating the problem, not contributing to it. Besides, most extramarital affairs do not deprive the husband of a long term sex partner.
Im all for legalizing polygamy, because Im all for legalizing almost everything. But I dont think you can dismiss this argumentor the sincerity of its proponentsas easily as Robin seems to think you can.”
-
The only problem with that anti-polygamy scenario as you describe it is that it’s totally devoid of evidence. It seems to be entirely based on the “what if” fear tactic simply to preserve a predisposed ideology. It is not based on practical evidence. If the theory proposed in that anti-polygamy argument is correct, then considering how much polygamy ran rampant in the world back in biblical times, the human species would have gone extinct by now. In fact, it’s quite possible to argue that the current population explosion in the world today is partly due to the demise of polygamy and the openly socially accepted extramarital romance of yesteryear.
-
In the argument above what number or percent are you assigning (for Landsburg) to “lots”?
-
I always chuckle when you use the word evidence. What are the exact numbers – evidence please- for prevalence of polygamy in biblical times? flesh out “rampant” for me. Also what would be the mode of extinction?
-
Quote from illinois
I always chuckle when you use the word evidence. What are the exact numbers – evidence please- for prevalence of polygamy in biblical times? flesh out “rampant” for me.
This is interesting:
[link=http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf]http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf[/link]
[size=”3″] [size=”2″]…until very recently, polygynous arrangements of marriage or cohabitation were the norm in world history, and strict monogamy remained an exception. Barely one in six of the 1,195 societies surveyed in the largest anthropological dataset have been classified as monogamous, while polygyny was frequently considered the preferred choice even if it failed to be common in practice (Gray (1998) 89-90, with Clark (1998)). Smaller samples of better documented societies convey a similar picture, and while monogamy is observed in a small proportion of all cases …[/size]
[size=”2″] In fact, although the nature of the evidence does not allow us to rule out the existence of strictly monogamous systems prior to the first millennium BCE, the earliest unequivocal documentation originates from the archaic Greek and early Roman periods. Thus, even though Greeks and Romans need not have been the first cultures to prescribe monogamy, these are the earliest securely attested cases and, moreover, established a paradigm for subsequent periods that eventually attained global dominance.[/size]
[/size] -
Quote from Lux
If the theory proposed in that anti-polygamy argument is correct, then considering how much polygamy ran rampant in the world back in biblical times, the human species would have gone extinct by now.
If you take Landsburg’s argument as correct (which I realize you are not) how does it follow that the human species would have been extinct?
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’m not trying to imply women don’t work or earn money but more like imagine going to the jewler store for Christmas and needing to buy for more than one woman, that’s going to add up. Hence most men probably can’t probably afford to have more than one wife. Or even if you had multiple kids with multiple women. The cost to raise a kid is substantial.
In some communities in this country there is a shortage of heterosexual men fit for marriage. After you remove the the gays, the criminals and the structually unemployed from the pool, the choices for a woman past her early 20s become pretty slim.
Gifts and such are only an issue if you go at this with a traditional consumer society perspective.
There are economies of scale in raising a larger family. Some of the wives can work, some focus on raising the brood. Once you get to larger numbers it is also easy to socialize the cost of your childbearing habit through sibsidized school lunches, s_chp and pell grants. If having to be financially self sufficient was a pre requisite to procreation, we would bar poor folks from doing it. We dont, on the contrary we subsidize indiscriminate procreation.
By legalizing gay marriage, society has made clear that the traditional model of one man one woman is done for, polygamy is just the logical next step.-
I find it interesting how there seems to be so much general acceptance of polygamy on this board when just a year ago (as evidenced by the first pages in this thread) there was so much hostility to gay marriage.
Is it a true rapid changing of attitudes? Or just a greater acceptance of “alternative” marriages so long as they are heterosexual in nature? -
I find it interesting how there seems to be so much general acceptance of polygamy on this board when just a year ago (as evidenced by the first pages in this thread) there was so much hostility to gay marriage.
Is it a true rapid changing of attitudes? Or just a greater acceptance of “alternative” marriages so long as they are heterosexual in nature? -
Quote from dergon
I find it interesting how there seems to be so much general acceptance of polygamy on this board when just a year ago (as evidenced by the first pages in this thread) there was so much hostility to gay marriage.
Is it a true rapid changing of attitudes? Or just a greater acceptance of “alternative” marriages so long as they are heterosexual in nature?
I dont recall myself saying anything hostile.
I must admit however that my position on this has evolved. Initially, I thought there was no need to call it ‘marriage’ if there is a strong civil union legislation in place. I recall discussions with two of my lawyer friends from 10-12 years ago. One of them, a litigator from NYC involved in some of the cases that eventually brought down doma explained to me that ‘civil union is not enough’ and that the end-game was to get it called marriage as that would eventually force the southern and midwestern states to give ‘full faith and credit’ to the agenda of the northeastern states who were driving this. The other one, a insurance lawyer form Oklahoma thought that civil unions were the ‘camels nose under the tent’ and that it will inevitably lead to a recognition of gay marriage. One of his arguments at the time was that if we allow any hookup of individuals to be called ‘marriage’, we would have no argument if other groups want to have recognition of their shared living arrangements, including polygamists and other religious whackos.
Turns out, they were both right. -
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
I find it interesting how there seems to be so much general acceptance of polygamy on this board when just a year ago (as evidenced by the first pages in this thread) there was so much hostility to gay marriage.
Is it a true rapid changing of attitudes? Or just a greater acceptance of “alternative” marriages so long as they are heterosexual in nature?
I dont recall myself saying anything hostile.
I didn’t say that [i]you [/i]made any such comments. RVU, Cigar and Point Man otoh ….. RVU went with gays “perverting” the institutuon of marriage and Point Man simply equated Harry Reid’s and Rob Portman’s support for marriage equality as because they were “light in the loafers” and Hillary’s support as because Bill was perhaps gay. -
Divorce lawyers for polygamy!
Monogamy is complicated enough. So long as exploitation is no worse than monogamy, it’s nobody’s business. And then there is the divorce. Property & child custody. And alimony & division of property.
And you thought monogamous divorce was messy…
There’s always the Commune. Or Kibbutz.
-
Perhaps polygamy is the main reason so many men went past 600 years old back in biblical times.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That “cohabitation” ruling made me think of “Three’s Company”.
-
yes, I certainly don’t dispute that. Lux should thank you for doing his homework. How does one get from Landsburg’s argument that polygamy is associated with more violent young men to extinction?
-
Quote from illinois
yes, I certainly don’t dispute that. Lux should thank you for doing his homework. How does one get from Landsburg’s argument that polygamy is associated with more violent young men to extinction?
A few of the better known examples of biblical polygamy:
Lamech
Abraham
Jacob
Moses
Gideon
David
They’re just the more well known figures. The list goes on and on. For example, the Bible claims David’s son had “700 wives and 300 concubines”.
I consider that to be a strong indication that there was “lots” of polygamy going on back then. As a matter of fact, the Bible actively supports polygamy and goes on to prescribe the detailed process for taking on multiple wives.
And yet humans survived for thousands of years afterward.
No idea how Landburg draws the conclusion that men would be more violent and we would head toward extinction; Landburg didn’t cite any data to back it up.
-
-
Would it be legally necessary for a spouse to know of the existence of brother/sister spouses? Or children? And what of responsibility?
-
Civil rights were once “rammed through” in spite of majorities in several states rejecting civil rights. Suffrage, male & female, as well as emancipation were once opposed by majorities too. By your argument the 13th Amendment was also “rammed” through & forced on the South.
-
Quote from Frumious
By your argument the 13th Amendment was also “rammed” through & forced on the South.
Ah no, it was enacted using the process laid out in the constitution. This is different from re-shaping society using the courts. I dont disagree with the objective of achieving marriage equality, but as I noted, ramming it through the courts may backfire.-
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
By your argument the 13th Amendment was also “rammed” through & forced on the South.
Ah no, it was enacted using the process laid out in the constitution. This is different from re-shaping society using the courts. I dont disagree with the objective of achieving marriage equality, but as I noted, ramming it through the courts may backfire.
It was required that all the Confederate States had to accept the 13th Amendment in full and abolish slavery before they would be allowed to be readmitted to the Union. The same was true for the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to former slaves.
That was seen by the Confederate States as having been forced to accept these terms. “Rammed through” is another way of saying that.
[link=http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm]http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm[/link]
Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.
Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Frumious
By your argument the 13th Amendment was also “rammed” through & forced on the South.
Ah no, it was enacted using the process laid out in the constitution. This is different from re-shaping society using the courts. I dont disagree with the objective of achieving marriage equality, but as I noted, ramming it through the courts may backfire.
It’s not being “rammed” thru the courts. The courts are simply upholding the equal protection that’s already guaranteed by the Constitution. Same thing happened years ago with interracial marriage and the question of simply being gay in the first place.
-
With political polarization and gridlock so strong in Congress and unlikely to abate any time soon I think we are going to see the courts become more and more important arbiters of determining which direction the country moves.
-
Quote from dergon
With political polarization and gridlock so strong in Congress and unlikely to abate any time soon I think we are going to see the courts become more and more important arbiters of determining which direction the country moves.
Agreed, with the exception that I don’t see the courts as determining the direction as much as facilitating the direction. If anyone is ramming this through the courts it’s the ultra-Puritan conservatives who insist on denying people their constitutional rights in the first place. When a bunch of people who love pink and blue start ganging up on other people who love rainbows, then yeah, the courts are going to gang up on the pink and blue lovers and set them straight. We can’t blame the rainbow lovers OR the courts for that.
-
I have posted elsewhere my arguments, and will re-post them again if necessary … but to save time the summary is that the general ethos and agenda of “progressive” ideologues is to blur or even outright deny or ignore the innate characteristics or distinctive traits of human persons that make them different. It is dishonest and destructive to the very persons on the micro level, as well as families and societies on the macro-level. These disruptions are boldly opposed to the realities of nature and history of what has worked in human civilization as far as human instrinsic qualities. If you can’t see it, try reading Paglia’s recent point of view on women and the feminist movement. She has many points I’m sure “feminists” [modern progressives] take for granted and have never thought about. Indeed, that’s the problem. Ideological agenda is so strong that those that are taught to be so “open” to so many things are in reality the most close minded, as I have alluded to before in this thread.
Put simply, and I’m not a fundamentalist in any way shape or form (so don’t read your hatred into this, just take it for the truth that it belies):
Having a father and a mother is, and will always be, the most resourceful, healthy and productive combination in which a human being can develop.
If you can’t see that …
[Please note that my arguments do not “exclude” anyone — another semantic trick by those who do not recognize the underlying realities of the world]-
Welcome to the world of the social Luddite.
-
Quote from Cigar
Having a father and a mother is, and will always be, the most resourceful, healthy and productive combination in which a human being can develop.
If you can’t see that …
You are so right, and that is why divorce is illegal and women over 45 have to provide an ovulation certificate prior to issuance of a marriage license.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Cigar
Having a father and a mother is, and will always be, the most resourceful, healthy and productive combination in which a human being can develop.
If you can’t see that …
You are so right, and that is why divorce is illegal and women over 45 have to provide an ovulation certificate prior to issuance of a marriage license.
I have to strongly agree with fw, Cigar. You’re argument is at best incomplete as it says nothing useful except that you enjoyed having a mother and father. Good for you. I would further extend fw’s argument of proof of fertility to include everyone wishing to get married along with an sworn intent to bear children. And we need to change today’s laws that allow barren couples to marry.
And yes, your argument would deny people from rights in spite of your denials. If you can’t see that…-
You libs still waving that banner de gayety?
-
What exactly is more resourceful, healthy, and productive about dual gendered parents than single gendered parents? Not rhetorical. RSVP.
-
Quote from uncleduke
What exactly is more resourceful, healthy, and productive about dual gendered parents than single gendered parents? Not rhetorical. RSVP.
Finally someone asks a question instead of just repeating banter, anecdotes and counter-intuitive claims. Might I add that these claims go against natural, historical and biological history. It’s amazing what ideology does to science.
In any case, thank you Duke, I’ll respond when I have more time available. -
Then what exactly is your argument, cigar. What exactly are you trying to say as it seems you are being coy rather than making an honest and forthright argument.
-
Here is a nice run down of the data that presented to the courts for the DOMA ruling:
[link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/179080990/12-16995-54]In a brief filed[/link] by the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, and Hawaii Psychological Association, the scholars outline three factors that research has determined leads to good parenting:
[ul][*]The quality of the relationships between parent and child.[*]The quality of the relationships among adults in the childs life (such as between the parents).[*]Available economic resources to support the childs development (e.g., safer neighborhoods, more nutritious food, etc.). [/ul] The groups point out that these factors are not impacted by sexual orientation, and thus there is no reason to conclude same-sex parents would be inferior in any way.
In a [link=http://www.asanet.org/press/amicus_brief_overturning_gay_marriage_ban.cfm]complementary brief[/link], the American Sociological Association (ASA) expanded upon what research says specifically about the outcomes for children of same-sex parents:
[ul][*][b]ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT[/b]: Both [link=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x/abstract]young children[/link]and [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566386]adolescents[/link] had similar grades in school regardless of the sex of their parents. In fact, children of same-sex couples [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23039344]fare similarly[/link] [link=http://ok2bme.ca/webfm_send/434]if not better[/link] on various educational outcomes when compared to children of different-sex parents.[*][b]SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT[/b]: Children with same-sex parents tend to have the same number, support, and quality of [link=http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp08.pdf]peer relationships and friendships[/link] as other children.[*][b]MENTAL HEALTH[/b]: Children with same-sex parents are just as [link=http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-quality-life-january-2012.pdf]psychologically healthy[/link]as children of different-sex parents, proving just as capable of [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/10/2277011/another-study-confirms-same-sex-couples-make-great-parents/]externalizing and internalizing behaviors[/link] with no greater levels of [link=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html]anxiety or Attention Deficit Disorder[/link].[*][b]EARLY SEXUAL ACTIVITY[/b]: Children of same-sex parents are not more likely to [link=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195322606.001.0001/acprof-9780195322606-chapter-005]engage in sexual activity[/link]. In fact, one study found that children with two moms engaged in sexual intercourse for the first time [link=http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-letter-editor-december-2011.pdf]at a slightly older age[/link] than a similar sample of children with different-sex parents.[*][b]SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS[/b]: Children with two moms were not more likely to [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16938011]use substances[/link] like tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, experience problems with substance abuse, or engage in delinquent behavior, nor are children of same-sex parents more likely to engage in [link=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html]rule-breaking or inappropriately aggressive behaviors[/link]. [/ul] Like it did in its brief to the Supreme Court earlier this year, the ASA also points out that much of the research opponents cite to challenge marriage equality doesnt actually address same-sex parenting. This includes rehashing of [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/01/1657891/sociologists-scotus-parenting/]its debunk of Mark Regeneruss flawed study[/link], highlighting that [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/10/17/2800721/debunking-complementarity-argument-marriage-equality/]David Popenoes work[/link] doesnt discuss same-sex families, reminding that several cited researchers have [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/25/1495201/researchers-object-to-their-parenting-study-being-used-in-arguments-against-marriage-equality/]objected to conservatives attempts[/link] to incorrectly use their research against same-sex parenting, and calling out [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/06/399180/focus-on-the-family-distorts-another-fatherless-study-to-oppose-marriage-equality/]various other fatherless studies[/link] that do not apply. -
Quote from dergon
Here is a nice run down of the data that presented to the courts for the DOMA ruling:
[link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/179080990/12-16995-54]In a brief filed[/link] by the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, and Hawaii Psychological Association, the scholars outline three factors that research has determined leads to good parenting:
[ul][*]The quality of the relationships between parent and child.[*]The quality of the relationships among adults in the childs life (such as between the parents).[*]Available economic resources to support the childs development (e.g., safer neighborhoods, more nutritious food, etc.). [/ul] The groups point out that these factors are not impacted by sexual orientation, and thus there is no reason to conclude same-sex parents would be inferior in any way.
In a [link=http://www.asanet.org/press/amicus_brief_overturning_gay_marriage_ban.cfm]complementary brief[/link], the American Sociological Association (ASA) expanded upon what research says specifically about the outcomes for children of same-sex parents:
[ul][*][b]ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT[/b]: Both [link=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x/abstract]young children[/link]and [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566386]adolescents[/link] had similar grades in school regardless of the sex of their parents. In fact, children of same-sex couples [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23039344]fare similarly[/link] [link=http://ok2bme.ca/webfm_send/434]if not better[/link] on various educational outcomes when compared to children of different-sex parents.[*][b]SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT[/b]: Children with same-sex parents tend to have the same number, support, and quality of [link=http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp08.pdf]peer relationships and friendships[/link] as other children.[*][b]MENTAL HEALTH[/b]: Children with same-sex parents are just as [link=http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-quality-life-january-2012.pdf]psychologically healthy[/link]as children of different-sex parents, proving just as capable of [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/10/2277011/another-study-confirms-same-sex-couples-make-great-parents/]externalizing and internalizing behaviors[/link] with no greater levels of [link=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html]anxiety or Attention Deficit Disorder[/link].[*][b]EARLY SEXUAL ACTIVITY[/b]: Children of same-sex parents are not more likely to [link=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195322606.001.0001/acprof-9780195322606-chapter-005]engage in sexual activity[/link]. In fact, one study found that children with two moms engaged in sexual intercourse for the first time [link=http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/nllfs-letter-editor-december-2011.pdf]at a slightly older age[/link] than a similar sample of children with different-sex parents.[*][b]SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS[/b]: Children with two moms were not more likely to [link=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16938011]use substances[/link] like tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, experience problems with substance abuse, or engage in delinquent behavior, nor are children of same-sex parents more likely to engage in [link=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/06/07/peds.2009-3153.full.pdf+html]rule-breaking or inappropriately aggressive behaviors[/link]. [/ul] Like it did in its brief to the Supreme Court earlier this year, the ASA also points out that much of the research opponents cite to challenge marriage equality doesnt actually address same-sex parenting. This includes rehashing of [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/01/1657891/sociologists-scotus-parenting/]its debunk of Mark Regeneruss flawed study[/link], highlighting that [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/10/17/2800721/debunking-complementarity-argument-marriage-equality/]David Popenoes work[/link] doesnt discuss same-sex families, reminding that several cited researchers have [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/25/1495201/researchers-object-to-their-parenting-study-being-used-in-arguments-against-marriage-equality/]objected to conservatives attempts[/link] to incorrectly use their research against same-sex parenting, and calling out [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/06/399180/focus-on-the-family-distorts-another-fatherless-study-to-oppose-marriage-equality/]various other fatherless studies[/link] that do not apply.I wonder if with point 1 – academic performance – the groups were controlled for socioeconomic status.
I personally don’t object to same sex partners having kids. As they have a significant barrier to having kids, I presume that they are on the average more motivated to be (good) parents.
I am glad my dad isn’t homosexual; we (my dad and I) at least have that in common. -
Quote from illinois
I am glad my dad isn’t homosexual; we (my dad and I) at least have that in common.
If he was he’d still be your dad & that would be your normal
I know 2 boys of a homosexual woman, they are adults, 1 with children of his own in a hetero marriage. They love their mom & haven’t ever considered they would be happy(er) if mom was straight. She just got married to another woman & they are both very happy with their extended families, 1 greek & 1 italian. In fact my wife & I will be visiting them tomorrow for New Year’s Day family get together.
Good food & people and children galore. We have to find the pickle in the tree! -
my computer won’t let me link to the study cited by CE, but I will certainly look at it when I can. I do notice it’s from the Family Research Council, and researcher Sprigg, who has made such public comments as the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell policy in the military will inevitably lead to male armed services members being subjected to unwelcome gay fellatio in their sleep, and that there is a place for criminal sanctions for homosexual behavior, as well as advocating “exporting” gays from the country. I’m admittedly skeptical before I see the report. I’ll just try to be cognizant of my pre-existing bias.
I think I’d rather get my unbiased info from Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter! -
Regarding the Family Research Council
[link=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council]http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council[/link]
Another hate group is Focus on the Family. Misnomers both.
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JjiaRJqKIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JjiaRJqKIU[/link] -
Anyone who disagres with the Communists is a racist or a hate group. Sorry, I forgot.
the paper cited in the review:
[image]http://cdn.els-cdn.com/sd/elsevier.gif[/image]
[link=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X]Social Science Research[/link]
[link=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X/41/4]Volume 41, Issue 4[/link], July 2012, Pages 752770[link=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X/41/4][image]http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0049089X12X00048-cov150h.gif[/image][/link]
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study[/h1] [*][link=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610]Mark Regnerus[/link] [[email protected]][image]http://cdn.els-cdn.com/sd/entities/REemail.gif[/image][/email] [/ul] [*]Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States [/ul]
I suppose the UT Austin Dept of Sociology and population Research is a homophobic hate group.
You guys are fully in favor of everybdy doin and thinking anything their little minds can dream up…unless their Christian and/or conservative…THOSE people need to be killed orat least locked up where their crazy stooooopid ideas can’t infect the pure wonderful Communists and friends. -
Just how many gay people and children of gay parents do you know?
Sorry but I’ve heard the identical arguments made about interracial relationships & marriages & bi-racial children before. It’s all old news. -
The question is was he is biased in his questions and analysis being predisposed to verify his own beliefs.
[link=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html]http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html[/link]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/us/mark-regnerus-and-the-role-of-faith-in-academics.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/us/mark-regnerus-and-the-role-of-faith-in-academics.html[/link]
Responding to a complaint from an anti-Regnerus blogger, the University of Texas conducted an inquiry. In August, [link=http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/29/regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed/]an investigator exonerated Dr. Regnerus[/link] but only after reading his e-mails and scrutinizing his research methods and data. In [link=http://www.utexas.edu/opa/wordpress/news/files/Regnerus-Inquiry-Report.pdf]his Aug. 24 report[/link], the investigator, Robert A. Peterson, wrote that he found no evidence of scientific misconduct in Dr. Regneruss study. But whether the study possessed significant limitations or was even perhaps seriously flawed is a determination that should be left to debates that are currently under way in the academy.
Some criticism of Dr. Regnerus was well deserved; for example, he included in the same category the children of stable same-sex couples and children whose parents marriage dissolved after a gay affair. And it is understandable that he is still gun-shy (he refused to be interviewed for this column). But even if he wont talk about his research, we should. It raises important questions about family structure, and just as interesting asks whether religious beliefs can shape scholarship.
Dr. Regneruss critics have made much of the conservative institutions, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, that financed his study. But its actually pretty easy to ignore sponsors, once their check has been cashed. It is harder to ignore ones deepest convictions. Although he does not discuss it now, Dr. Regnerus has a long history as an outspoken Christian who once said his faith and his scholarship were intertwined. So it is fair to ask what he meant.
-
Nice citation CE. Any others. You are too helpful to those with opposing views. Almost socialistic in your subconscious self sabotage.
-
Oh yes, the Regnerus study ….
[link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/27/596251/gay-parenting-bullshit/]Journals Internal Audit Finds Flawed Gay Parenting Study To Be Bullshit[/link]
Judge Orders Disclosure of Documents Detailing Publication of Regnerus Junk Science
In todays opinion, Orange County Circuit Judge Donald Grincewicz ruled that emails and documents possessed by University of Central Florida (UCF) related to the flawed studys peer-review process must be turned over to John Becker, who sought the documents under Floridas Public Records Act. UCF houses the journal Social Science Research, which published the Regnerus study, and the editor of the journal, UCF Professor James Wright, led the peer-review process for the research. Becker is represented by the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., and Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A; and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation funded the litigation.
There has always been a dark cloud over the Regnerus study, yet this debunked study is now being touted by anti-LGBT organizations around the country and around the globe, said Ellen Kahn, M.S.S, of the Human Rights Campaign. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public has a right to know how junk science gets published in a scholarly journal.
Two hundred scholars as well as the American Sociological Association were quick to point out the studys glaring flaws and biases. These problems also included conflicts of interest among individuals and organizations who were both funding and working on the study, as well as a questionable peer review process.
This ruling is an important step toward exposing the potential anti-LGBT animus behind Regnerus research. Since its publication, the study has shown up time and time again in marriage equality and LGBT adoption debates both in the United States and internationally. -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from illinois
I am glad my dad isn’t homosexual; we (my dad and I) at least have that in common.
If he was he’d still be your dad & that would be your normal
I know 2 boys of a homosexual woman, they are adults, 1 with children of his own in a hetero marriage. They love their mom & haven’t ever considered they would be happy(er) if mom was straight. She just got married to another woman & they are both very happy with their extended families, 1 greek & 1 italian. In fact my wife & I will be visiting them tomorrow for New Year’s Day family get together.
Good food & people and children galore. We have to find the pickle in the tree!
Yeah, I like having more in common with my dad. If other people would prefer to have more differences with their parents, then that is fine with me.
-
Quote from illinois
Yeah, I like having more in common with my dad. If other people would prefer to have more differences with their parents, then that is fine with me.
It was not intended as an insult to you. It’s about loving your parents for who they are or were.
It’s about loving your children for who they are.
-
-
Quote from Point Man
You libs still waving that banner de gayety?
Yes, just as you’re still waiving the banner de fear et bigotry.
So you’re right, some things never change.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
I have to strongly agree with fw, Cigar. You’re argument is at best incomplete as it says nothing useful except that you enjoyed having a mother and father. Good for you. I would further extend fw’s argument of proof of fertility to include everyone wishing to get married along with an sworn intent to bear children. And we need to change today’s laws that allow barren couples to marry.
And yes, your argument would deny people from rights in spite of your denials. If you can’t see that…
It does sound like fw was being sarcastic and was supporting gay marriage in that post. We obviously do NOT require women to produce a certificate of fertility and divorce is certainly not illegal anywhere in the USA.
In fact, even the Catholic Church will remarry you after you get divorced (after putting you thru some official hoops) despite the fact that you violated a prime sacrament! As I recall, the divorce rate among gay marriages is FAR lower than heterosexual marriages.
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Cigar
Having a father and a mother is, and will always be, the most resourceful, healthy and productive combination in which a human being can develop.
If you can’t see that …
You are so right, and that is why divorce is illegal and women over 45 have to provide an ovulation certificate prior to issuance of a marriage license.
Your response is complete non-sequitir. Not only did I not mention the things you did, they have nothing to do with my argument nor am I using them as such-
Quote from Cigar
Your response is complete non-sequitir. Not only did I not mention the things you did, they have nothing to do with my argument nor am I using them as such
Your arguments make no sense and are easily disproven by existing data. If the goverment was interested in childbearing or child-rearing as part of marriage, they would make it a condition of getting married. If the goverment wanted to require two opposite gender parents for each child, they would bar single women from having children. Whether and how married people have children and by which means is none of the goverments business.
You can make a religious argument against it, but if we used the bible as the sole source of administrative law, we would outlaw dissimilar fabrics and cooking lambs in the milk of their mother.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Cigar
Your response is complete non-sequitir. Not only did I not mention the things you did, they have nothing to do with my argument nor am I using them as such
Your arguments make no sense and are easily disproven by existing data. If the goverment was interested in childbearing or child-rearing as part of marriage, they would make it a condition of getting married. If the goverment wanted to require two opposite gender parents for each child, they would bar single women from having children. Whether and how married people have children and by which means is none of the goverments business.
You can make a religious argument against it, but if we used the bible as the sole source of administrative law, we would outlaw dissimilar fabrics and cooking lambs in the milk of their mother.
You are wrong on every account. You don’t know my arguments, have not stated them or refuted them, and your ideological ways are shining through. Just look at what you wrote and understand what a slave to the ideologue game you are my friend “It’s none of government’s business, etc. etc.” has nothing to do with my argument, never has.
You are ironically as dogmatic as any “religious” person that you probably are bothered by, and your understanding of the bible with references to it (I’ve made NO appeal to the Bible, ever) is as cursory as your comments are nonsensical and attempting to be sarcastic.
I find it odd that people would rather deride others instead of just doing their best to understand a point of view, asking questions to either understand more, or point out parts that don’t follow. I do this to test my viewpoints and see if they can withstand criticism; if not, I consider changing them.
You do it for entertainment, having already decided. You gain nothing.-
You are still saying nothing, cigar.
You are a reincarnation of some earlier posters who refute everything but never provide an argument.
State your case or shut up.
-
Quote from Frumious
You are still saying nothing, cigar.
You are a reincarnation of some earlier posters who refute everything but never provide an argument.
State your case or shut up.Yes, it’s very interesting how cigar keeps avoiding that simple issue.
This kind of evasion is the hallmark of the cornered ideologue in denial.
You can almost smell the smoke from all the shorting out. -
Quote from Cigar
You are wrong on every account. You don’t know my arguments, have not stated them or refuted them, and your ideological ways are shining through. Just look at what you wrote and understand what a slave to the ideologue game you are my friend “It’s none of government’s business, etc. etc.” has nothing to do with my argument, never has.
If someone tells me that the earth is a disc or that planes distribute ‘chemtrails’ I dont argue with them either.
The issue of whether gay marriage is detrimental to children and whether marriage is legally linked to childbearing has been argued as part of the supreme court cases and is settled.
Interestingly, this years tax-season is the first one where couples have to file as married if they are legally married. Some will get a couple of bucks back, some will have sizeable underpayments. Now some smart-aleck tax people tell the couples who get refunds to file amended returns going years back to when they got married. If that happens, we’ll see whether the IRS turns around and audits all those couples with underpayments and forces them to pay the difference for all the years they were already married. -
Or marriage bonuses. In general, there are far more couples who enjoy a bonus rather than a penalty.
-
Cigar, I also don’t understand how the issue is contrary to natural or biological history. (I’ll leave off a quip about historical history). Homosexuality has surely been present throughout all of natural and biological history has it not? Again, RSVP when you have the inclination or time.
-
Not that you Communists, hell-bent to fundmentaly transform our country and destroy the traditionl family will believe it, but heres some evidence for you:
[link=http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research]http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research[/link]
I wasn’t gonna spend the $35 on the reviewed article, but maybe Lux want’s to spend the bux. anyway, the summary says:
[blockquote] Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
[ul][*]Are[i] much[/i] more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)[*]Have lower educational attainment[*]Report less safety and security in their family of origin[*]Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin[*]Are more likely to suffer from depression[*]Have been arrested more often[*]If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male [i]and[/i] female [/ul] The high mathematical standard of “statistical significance” was more difficult to reach for the children of “gay fathers” in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of [i]lesbian mothers[/i] (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
[ul][*]Are more likely to be currently cohabiting[*]Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance[*]Are less likely to be currently employed full-time[*]Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed[*]Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something [i]other than[/i] entirely heterosexual[*]Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting[*]Are an astonishing [i]10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”[/i][*]Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will[*]Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others[*]Use marijuana more frequently[*]Smoke more frequently[*]Watch TV for long periods more frequently[*]Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense [/ul] [/blockquote]
Doesn’t sound like “no difference” to me. -
Quote from CardiacEvent
Not that you Communists, hell-bent to fundmentaly transform our country and destroy the traditionl family will believe it,
Nothing like cheapening “family” by segregating them into 2 camps, “traditional”and “other.”Them & us. Not so long ago “traditional family”also meant “sticking to your own kind.” Happily the world is creating more mutts.
“You’ve Got To Be Taught”- Rogers & Hammerstein
As for your stats of “more likely to,” it’s all unmitigated crap. Where do you dig up such BS?
And what’s wrong with cohabiting before marriage anyway? As for public assistance, all the gays I know work for a living & a few earn a nice living.
Again, where do you dig up such BS?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
group hug
-
There is no reliable data to show any significant difference between opposite-gender parenting and same-sex parenting.
Social science research has consistently shown that parents sexual orientation has no bearing on childrens well-being.
-
Btw cigar, homosexuality exists naturally in nature in other creatures also, if that was some point you were trying to draw.
-
Frumious, is ‘Find the Pickle in the Tree’ a game kids can play?
-
Quote from uncleduke
Frumious, is ‘Find the Pickle in the Tree’ a game kids can play?
Uh, yeah.
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_pickle]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_pickle[/link]
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Doesn’t sound like “no difference” to me.
That’s because you have a singularly uncurious mind, complacent to discover anything meaningful in the world around you that’s not smothering in fear and bigotry as the result of deep-seated insecurities and total lack of self-esteem camouflaged by ostensible arrogance and Napolean complex.
Regnerus was interviewed three months after publishing his “new” (July ’12) study that Sprigg got all excited about[i]. [/i]In his own words, [i]”I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad”:[/i]
[link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/]http://thinkprogress.org/…admits-gay-parenting/#[/link]
[i]”Regneruss study utterly failed to control for error. The studys so-called straight households featured heterosexual parents in committed, long-term [married] relationships, whereas the so-called gay households failed to feature same-sex couples in comparable relationships.”:[/i]
[link=http://www.towleroad.com/2013/11/judge-orders-documents-related-to-anti-gay-discredited-mark-regnerus-parenting-study-exposed.html]http://www.towleroad.com/…ing-study-exposed.html[/link]
As far as anyone can tell — including the smokescreen summary provided by Sprigg himself — Regnerus’ study was simply about the outcome of a long-term integral family unit vs. unstable tentative relationships, regardless of the gender of the players. Ergo, Sprigg doesn’t even address any comparison between married vs. unmarried, or long-term vs. short-term [u]heterosexual[/u] relationships! Therefore, all Regnerus did was show the positive outcome of long-term marriage, regardless of the gender of the partners (how many gay couples were married in the USA as of July 2012, not to mention how many married gay couples had children for any length of time?).
Sprigg rather obviously and disingenuously cherry-picked Regnerus’ data and added his own spin to it ([i]tornado[/i], actually). Regnerus, himself, admits his study did not prove anything specifically about homosexual vs. heterosexual parenting. It was all about the long-term ([i]years[/i]) formal ([i]marriage[/i]) stability of the family unit which can be accomplished by both heterosexual and homosexual partners, alike.
If anything, Regnerus’ study SUPPORTS gay marriage because of the additional stability to the family unit that marriage provides. However, it does qualify as [i]”junk science”[/i] because the conclusions were not drawn from the original hypotheses but rather were drawn after the study, epiphenomenally, which is a scientific no-no. In other words, if he simply wanted to study the stability of the family unit based on long-term marriage, then he should have controlled for duration, marital status, and gender.
In any case, the fact that he compares long-term heterosexual marriages with short-term homosexual cohabitation makes it next to impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about metrics obtained from the two populations.
But, of course, the hot steamy elephant in the room is SO WHAT?!!! Are you suggesting that we should legislate against any parenting scenario that results in children who “plead guilty more often” or are “less educated” or “make less money” or have “more sexual partners”?
[i][b]Der Grosse Bruder[/b],[/i] huh? Is THAT the [i]”life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”[/i] that you want for the American way of life? Not to mention putting a torch to “equal protection”?
And you call [i][u]us[/u][/i] Commies?! Don’t make me laugh.
Once again, [b]CluelessEvent[/b], your magnificent ignorance lights up the clear evening winter sky.
-
Hey, CommieLux… Looks like I touched a nerve, huh? Really made you and the other Commies mad. Is there something bout you we need to know?
I’m not puttin any torches to anythin, unlike you America haters. Not tellin anyone, not even Commies like you, not to persue their happiness cept where that happiness trods upon MY happiness, such as stealing MY money to make yyourselves feel better. I simply cited a study that says gay folks might not be the best parents. Agree with it or not, I really don’t care much what you Commies think. But its REALLLLLLY interesting that you get your lil pink panties in a huge wad over this, and spend what musta been an hour researching it so you can feel better bout not agreeing with it. Whatever. Glad I was able to keep you amused and away from your other important work for an hour. Happy New Year!-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Hey, CommieLux… Is there something bout you we need to know?
I really don’t care much what you Commies think. But its REALLLLLLY interesting that you get your lil pink panties in a huge wad over this, and spend what musta been an hour researching it so you can feel better bout not agreeing with it.
It’s nice to see the simple minded notion you put forth, that supporters of marriage and parenting equality must be homosexuals themselves. It makes perfect sense in your mind, I’m sure. You think “I am anti-gay, therefore people who find my anti-gay messaging maddening must likely be gay themselves.” And the added touch that you throw in anti-gay stereotype effeminate slurs just makes this really the poster boy post for offensiveness and lack of empathy.
For clarification, CardiacEvent — People support marriage equality for a number of reasons. Some find government or religious intrusion into couples’ daily lives offensive. Others believe in Equal Protection as provided by the Constitution. Others simply stand in solidarity with their gay brothers and sisters in order to show them support in the face of discrimination. Others just simply because they know in their hearts it is the right thing to do.
Given that more than half of this nation supports gay marriage, it stands that there literally more than 100 million straight people who fit into the categories above or have their own individual reasons to support human rights.
-
Quote from dergon
Given that more than half of this nation supports gay marriage, it stands that there literally more than 100 million straight people who fit into the categories above or have their own individual reasons to support human rights.
By CEs reasoning, 1/2 of the country gay pinko commies [:D] .-
Not that youll believe it or even care, but I do support rights for homosexals. Got gay friends whom my wife and I love dearly who are raising a disabled son, and two better parents you wont find anywhere. Personally, I think a civil union is proper and necessary. Call it marriage if you want, but it isnt and everyone knows it isn’t.
But what I cant stand is when this stuff gets crammed down everbodys throat. It is pretty clear tht what is being pushed is not “equal rights” but superior rights. Th gay lifestyle is celebrated by Lefties even those that arent gay. What you guys want is not just equal rights (whigh already exist under the law) but rather to turn morality and right and wront upside down and make it preferable to be gay than straight. Lots of gays hate the straights, did you know? They call us “breeders” with contempt just as deep and venomos as you incorrectly think I have for them. Its the same anyting goes mentality thats now leading to ;you guys forcing us to accept that a 5 year old can decide what gender he or she wants to be, plumbing be dammed. Anyting to destroy conventional morality and the family structure that worked pretty well for thousands of years.
As for gays being good parents, as I said, I know some personally that are GREAT parents. And some straights who are cr@ppy parents. Most of the examples in the UT article seem to relate to how the kid behaves relative to sexual morality, which you all seem to thik is a joke anyway. Whatever. I can’t get that excited about it. If my kids told me they were homosexual I would be sad for them but still love them. That the Communists and the media (same thing) have declared Homosexuals the new Blacks and devote so much time and effort an pain and agony to the issue says something, which I’ll leave to the readr to decide.
As usual, the same old stuff again and again and agin from you AND from me. I’m mad at the Commies for wanting to fundamentally transform this great country into some weird Socialist Revulutionary fantasy land where you int the form of the all powerful state steal from the rich and applaud anyone having sex with anyone or anything else and violating whatever other morality we used to believe in. And youre mad at me for pointing it out, think Im a luddite and old fogey stuck in flyover territory with my guns and religion. Mabye I’m a dying breed, boys, but I’m quite happy in my belifs. Sadly, Im sur you are too.-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Not that youll believe it or even care, but I do support rights for homosexals. Got gay friends whom my wife and I love dearly who are raising a disabled son, and two better parents you wont find anywhere. Personally, I think a civil union is proper and necessary. Call it marriage if you want, but it isnt and everyone knows it isn’t.
But what I cant stand is when this stuff gets crammed down everbodys throat. It is pretty clear tht what is being pushed is not “equal rights” but superior rights. Th gay lifestyle is celebrated by Lefties even those that arent gay. What you guys want is not just equal rights (whigh already exist under the law) but rather to turn morality and right and wront upside down and make it preferable to be gay than straight. Lots of gays hate the straights, did you know? They call us “breeders” with contempt just as deep and venomos as you incorrectly think I have for them. Its the same anyting goes mentality thats now leading to ;you guys forcing us to accept that a 5 year old can decide what gender he or she wants to be, plumbing be dammed. Anyting to destroy conventional morality and the family structure that worked pretty well for thousands of years.
As for gays being good parents, as I said, I know some personally that are GREAT parents. And some straights who are cr@ppy parents. Most of the examples in the UT article seem to relate to how the kid behaves relative to sexual morality, which you all seem to thik is a joke anyway. Whatever. I can’t get that excited about it. If my kids told me they were homosexual I would be sad for them but still love them. That the Communists and the media (same thing) have declared Homosexuals the new Blacks and devote so much time and effort an pain and agony to the issue says something, which I’ll leave to the readr to decide.
As usual, the same old stuff again and again and agin from you AND from me. I’m mad at the Commies for wanting to fundamentally transform this great country into some weird Socialist Revulutionary fantasy land where you int the form of the all powerful state steal from the rich and applaud anyone having sex with anyone or anything else and violating whatever other morality we used to believe in. And youre mad at me for pointing it out, think Im a luddite and old fogey stuck in flyover territory with my guns and religion. Mabye I’m a dying breed, boys, but I’m quite happy in my belifs. Sadly, Im sur you are too.
You are full of crap. Those paragraphs contain so much wrongess and bullsh*t packed into 220 words that it nearly boggles the mind.
Look – You don’t to lash out with “pink panties” slurs and then come back with some moral argument.
Gay is not a [i]lifestyle[/i]. It is a sexual orientation.
There is no desire to make gay [i]preferable[/i][/i] to being straight.
The morality of homosexuality is not your concern. We live in a country where I get to determine my morality and you get to determine yours up to the point I infringe upon your rights or you infringe on mine.
Equal rights for gays DO NOT already exist under the law. But that’s why this thread, the Supreme Court challengeagainst hte discriminatroy DOMA exist in the first place.
And equality is not being “crammed down your throat”. If you don’t want to get married to a man — don’t! If you don’t want to attend a church that sanctions gay unions — don’t!
If you wan’t to go with the “old fogey” defense, that’s fine with me. But to be old doesn’t make your grandfather’s racism any more appropriate than it does your clear dislike of gays. [i]
[/i] -
Quote from CardiacEvent
Not that youll believe it or even care, but I do support rights for homosexals. Got gay friends whom my wife and I love dearly who are raising a disabled son, and two better parents you wont find anywhere. Personally, I think a civil union is proper and necessary. Call it marriage if you want, but it isnt and everyone knows it isn’t.
But what I cant stand is when this stuff gets crammed down everbodys throat. It is pretty clear tht what is being pushed is not “equal rights” but superior rights. Th gay lifestyle is celebrated by Lefties even those that arent gay. What you guys want is not just equal rights (whigh already exist under the law) but rather to turn morality and right and wront upside down and make it preferable to be gay than straight. Lots of gays hate the straights, did you know? They call us “breeders” with contempt just as deep and venomos as you incorrectly think I have for them. Its the same anyting goes mentality thats now leading to ;you guys forcing us to accept that a 5 year old can decide what gender he or she wants to be, plumbing be dammed. Anyting to destroy conventional morality and the family structure that worked pretty well for thousands of years.
As for gays being good parents, as I said, I know some personally that are GREAT parents. And some straights who are cr@ppy parents. Most of the examples in the UT article seem to relate to how the kid behaves relative to sexual morality, which you all seem to thik is a joke anyway. Whatever. I can’t get that excited about it. If my kids told me they were homosexual I would be sad for them but still love them. That the Communists and the media (same thing) have declared Homosexuals the new Blacks and devote so much time and effort an pain and agony to the issue says something, which I’ll leave to the readr to decide.
As usual, the same old stuff again and again and agin from you AND from me. I’m mad at the Commies for wanting to fundamentally transform this great country into some weird Socialist Revulutionary fantasy land where you int the form of the all powerful state steal from the rich and applaud anyone having sex with anyone or anything else and violating whatever other morality we used to believe in. And youre mad at me for pointing it out, think Im a luddite and old fogey stuck in flyover territory with my guns and religion. Mabye I’m a dying breed, boys, but I’m quite happy in my belifs. Sadly, Im sur you are too.
You may want to wipe that foam of your keyboard.
-
-
-
-
CE, wonder if ol’ soapy had an actual mother and father, or was it a test tube in a dark back-street lab. I do believe it was a test tube!!
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
…and spend what musta been an hour researching it so you can feel better bout not agreeing with it…
Actually, I spent MORE than an hour on it, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Not only was the research into Sprigg and Regnerus surprisingly fascinating, I also now realize that here at Aunt Minnie few things are as gratifying as exposing complete and utter ignorance like yours across the entire planet’s internet for all to see.
Thank you for that!
-
Youre welcome. And thanks for the chance to show how you Communists wallow in your dogma and can’t see beyon it. Time will tell which side wins. That you bother to take MORE than an hour, not to mention 4465 posts to my coupla hundred shows the entire world just how delusional you are and how impotrant you think you are in the great scheme of things. I pity you, Lux, I reallly do. but I do admire yiou Communists for one thing…you do stick together unlike us Conservatives. Marx wrote it, Lenin refined it, Stalin pounded it, Obama pablumized it, and YOU boys believe it at all costs. We conservatives, as you see here, are pretty good bout squabbling among ourselves over minor cr@p. Good news for you, Comrade Luxie…probably won’t ever be another Republican President. Bad news for America,tho.
And by thw way, it was OK for KKr@p to insinutate a while back that one of us rare conservative types was a homosexual predator, and I didnt hear any complaints from you Commies. Again great example of how you comrades stick together through thick, thin, and immorality.
Heres the most frightenin thing I’ve ever seen on this or any other board:
[blockquote]The morality of homosexuality is not your concern. We live in a country where I get to determine my morality and you get to determine yours up to the point I infringe upon your rights or you infringe on mine.
Equal rights for gays DO NOT already exist under the law. But that’s why this thread, the Supreme Court challengeagainst hte discriminatroy DOMA exist in the first place.
[/blockquote]
If everybody gets to determine their own morality, which is the Communist/Revolutionary dream, we are totally screwed, but then you guys probably like that. And you can bellow all you want bout DOMA… I said already I believe in civil unions. But to call some arrangemet between anytghing other than a man and a woman marriage aint correct. Period. You can walk outside and declair that the sky is kelly green and be adamant about that, and not want to hear the truth, but the sky is still blue no matter what you call it. Sorry.
Have a really Happy New Year!-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Heres the most frightenin thing I’ve ever seen on this or any other board:
[blockquote]The morality of homosexuality is not your concern. We live in a country where I get to determine my morality and you get to determine yours up to the point I infringe upon your rights or you infringe on mine.
Equal rights for gays DO NOT already exist under the law. But that’s why this thread, the Supreme Court challengeagainst hte discriminatroy DOMA exist in the first place.
[/blockquote]
If everybody gets to determine their own morality, which is the Communist/Revolutionary dream, we are totally screwed, but then you guys probably like that. And you can bellow all you want bout DOMA… I said already I believe in civil unions. But to call some arrangemet between anytghing other than a man and a woman marriage aint correct. Period. You can walk outside and declair that the sky is kelly green and be adamant about that, and not want to hear the truth, but the sky is still blue no matter what you call it. Sorry.Have a really Happy New Year!
Wow, that really does say it all, right there. You’ve just exposed the fact that YOU are the biggest Commie on this site!
For you to deny people their own sense of morality is an admission that you are, by definition, the most [u][i]anti[/i][/u]-American among us! And you don’t even see that.
In case you haven’t been keeping up with current events:
[blockquote] People are allowed to get drunk on their ass while others are allowed to have a moral law to never touch a drop of alcohol.
People are allowed to fill their guts with hot juicy red meat, while others are allowed to hold a morality that animals are God’s creatures and should remain unedible.
People are allowed to withhold from sexual activity until they are prepared to procreate, while others are allowed their morality of contraception and not deny themselves of worldly pleasures.
People are allowed to require that they may only make love missionary style, while all bets are off in other bedrooms.
People are allowed to constrain themselves to only watch G-rated films while others freely peruse porn on the web.
People are allowed to have many cabinets of guns in their home while the morality of others would never allow them to own a single bullet.
Some people’s morality prefer the intensity of rock and roll while others prefer cerebral jazz, the fluidity of ballet, or the juvenile story lines of classical operas.Since the very first Founder set foot on this land, some people have engaged in extramarital sex with Indians and slaves while others attained very puritan ways.
[/blockquote]
And that’s because the Founders REQUIRED BY LAW that each American was allowed his/her own belief system of morality and ethics.
How can you possibly sit there and fool yourself into thinking that it is in ANY way “American” to deny people their own morality when such freedom is at the crux of what it means to be American in the first place?
You, very simply, are out of your mind, at worst, or simply not an American, at best.
-
CE, simple question, do you really stand by the conclusions of the UT article you cited, despite it being thouroughly and resoundingly (auditor: “the study is in short bull sh*t” )discredited by an internal audit by the publishing journal?
-
Reading these posts from the last few days (sorry I’ve been busy working you see), I can’t help but hear Inigo Montoya telling Cardiac “You keep using these terms. I do not think they mean what you think they mean”.
-
Quote from Icthruu74
Reading these posts from the last few days (sorry I’ve been busy working you see), I can’t help but hear Inigo Montoya telling Cardiac “You keep using these terms. I do not think they mean what you think they mean”.
Funny you should say that, because I was thinking that CE had some deep-seated issues that would trivialize Montoya’s [i]”You killed my father; prepare to die” [/i]obsession!
-
I know what the terems mean, thanks. And Im sure we all have deep seated issues, particularly those who need the State to be their god and to steal from others in the name of helping the Pooooor.
Im personally surprised UT even published that paper, but not surprized the fine leftist academic universe panned it. I think there is still some validty to the results. At the very least, kids growin up in a homosexual household are gonna have some confusion over sexual roles and identity. If I was as wrapped up in the issue as you are, I would go lookin for more articules, but I’m not about to spend “More than an hour!!!” trying to knock you guys off your lofty “moral” pedestals.
As for everybody having their own morality, that is NOT what the U.S. is all about, but that IS what leftist revolutionaries think they are all about. What your talkin about is moral relativism and I reject that out of hand. Basicaly comes down to your lack of belief in God, thus there is no ultimate moral authority and you can do whatever you want. That “as long as it don’t hurt anyone” is a crock. What maybe you mean is as long as you didn’t INTEND to hurt anyone its OK. But then you guys will usually be the first to wail and cry UNFAIR when somethin happens to some group you wanted to protect in your undyin love of the oppressed.
Take the Crash of 2008. Jimmy Carters morality said that we have to give cheap loans to people that can’t afford them. Good intentions, really hurt the people giving loans. So the bankers, with their own morality of not going bankrupt and still tryin to do what was asked of them bundled the bad loans into bad derivatives and sold em…didn’t mean to hurt anybody,but we know what happend. Do I have to remind you guys how much you wailed and pi$$ed and moaned bout the nasty greedy banksters?
Bad example? Heres a worse one. Pregnant moms morality allows her to abort her baby, a “right” you guys applaud from the highest hills. Don’t think the babys morality got taken into consideration much.
And since sexual morality is a big one where “no one getst hurt” what bout if some unnamed moral relativist wanted to have relations with his dog? Does the dog have any say as long as he doesnt get hurt in the process? What if the guy wanted to have relations with YOUR dog? He PROMISES not to hurt the dog?!!
How bout drugs? Marajuana is gettin legalized in many places, but so far thats it. but since takin drugs doesn’t generally hurt anyone else, why not let it happen? Heck, open it all up to retail and taxation!
How bout your position that rich guys like me and Luxie need confiscatory taxation to cough it up to Helllllllllllllllp the pooooooooooooooooooooor? That hurts ME by robbing money out of my pocket. But by your “immoral code” its OK to hurt someone to help someone else, yeaH?
Sad fact is, your new morality, your “individual morality”, really moral relativism, boils down to nothin more that the old [i]immorality[/i]…do what you want…if it feels good, do it. There ain’t no rules. None at all. Have at it.
Doing whatever you want whenever you want is not “AMERICAN”…it is the ranting of an immature, petulant, tortured soul that has rejected its Creator as a delinquent child might reject his parents so he can do what he pleases. In this feel-good, ME first society, pangs of guilt generated by behavior one KNOWS is wrong are intolerable…thus you elevate yourselves and your STATE to god-hood and pretend that all is well. But deep down, you KNOW you’re very, very, sadly, and profoundly wrong. Again, I feel nothing but pity for you and your ilk.
-
Self indulgent Pity Party.
-
I’d call persisting in validating results of an invalidated study rational relativism.
And the rest of the diatribe follows suit.
-
-
C: did u see Colorado made 1 mill the first day…now 40 mill is suppose to go to schools from my interpretation of the law bit they have no banks that want that money so security will have to be in hi alert in the state from bandits….the future President of the US will have to address this if Colorado and Washington show any success
Quote from Cardiaes
I know what the terms mean, thanks. And Am sure we all have deep seated issues, particularly those who need the State to be their god and to steal from others in the name of helping the Poor.
Am personally surprised UT even published that paper, but not surprised the fine leftist academic universe panned it. I think there is still some valid to the results. At the very least, kids groin up in a hemisect household are gonia have some confusion over sexual roles and identity. If I was as wrapped up in the issue as you are, I would go liken for more articules, but I’m not about to spend “More than an hour!!!” trying to knock you guys off your lofty “moral” pedestals.
As for everybody having their own morality, that is NOT what the U.S. is all about, but that IS what leftist revolutionaries think they are all about. What your talkin about is moral relativism and I reject that out of hand. Basicaly comes down to your lack of belief in God, thus there is no ultimate moral authority and you can do whatever you want. That “as long as it don’t hurt anyone” is a crock. What maybe you mean is as long as you didn’t INTEND to hurt anyone its OK. But then you guys will usually be the first to wail and cry UNFAIR when somethin happens to some group you wanted to protect in your undyin love of the oppressed.
Take the Crash of 2008. Jimmy Carters morality said that we have to give cheap loans to people that can’t afford them. Good intentions, really hurt the people giving loans. So the bankers, with their own morality of not going bankrupt and still tryin to do what was asked of them bundled the bad loans into bad derivatives and sold em…didn’t mean to hurt anybody,but we know what happend. Do I have to remind you guys how much you wailed and pi$$ed and moaned bout the nasty greedy banksters?
Bad example? Heres a worse one. Pregnant moms morality allows her to abort her baby, a “right” you guys applaud from the highest hills. Don’t think the babys morality got taken into consideration much.And since sexual morality is a big one where “no one getst hurt” what bout if some unnamed moral relativist wanted to have relations with his dog? Does the dog have any say as long as he doesnt get hurt in the process? What if the guy wanted to have relations with YOUR dog? He PROMISES not to hurt the dog?!!
How bout drugs? Marajuana is gettin legalized in many places, but so far thats it. but since takin drugs doesn’t generally hurt anyone else, why not let it happen? Heck, open it all up to retail and taxation!
How bout your position that rich guys like me and Luxie need confiscatory taxation to cough it up to Helllllllllllllllp the pooooooooooooooooooooor? That hurts ME by robbing money out of my pocket. But by your “immoral code” its OK to hurt someone to help someone else, yeaH?
Sad fact is, your new morality, your “individual morality”, really moral relativism, boils down to nothin more that the old [i]immorality[/i]…do what you want…if it feels good, do it. There ain’t no rules. None at all. Have at it.
Doing whatever you want whenever you want is not “AMERICAN”…it is the ranting of an immature, petulant, tortured soul that has rejected its Creator as a delinquent child might reject his parents so he can do what he pleases. In this feel-good, ME first society, pangs of guilt generated by behavior one KNOWS is wrong are intolerable…thus you elevate yourselves and your STATE to god-hood and pretend that all is well. But deep down, you KNOW you’re very, very, sadly, and profoundly wrong. Again, I feel nothing but pity for you and your ilk.
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
I know what the terems mean, thanks. And Im sure we all have deep seated issues, particularly those who need the State to be their god and to steal from others in the name of helping the Pooooor.
[blah, blah, blah, fear, hate, fear, hate, etc.]…[i]”steal from others”. [/i]
Just goes to show you how ignorant some people can be. It’s NOT your money. It never WAS your money. It was ALWAYS the government’s money. It’s only on your paycheck because that’s where the government ruled it should come from. But if it didn’t come from your paycheck, they’d pull it from somewhere else. It could just as well come from any number of other sources, including corporate taxes, sales taxes, “fees”, or whatever.
And just to show you how well this game has been honed to a fine art, look at what happened recently with the “75% tax on millionaires” in France. That government shrewdly placed the tax burden on the [u]employer[/u] rather than the employee. This way the French gov’t doesn’t have all the millionaires crying foul about how “they” must pay all that tax. How dumb are they to not realize that if the employer is paying those huge taxes, than it’s that much less showing up on their own paycheck? But they’re no longer calling it “their” money simply because “they” aren’t the ones paying it, their employer is paying it instead.
Do you have any idea how much tax your employer pays? Or how much the insurance industry pays (which contributes to the cost of healthcare and/or which lowers the amount of their revenue that might fuel your own wealth), or how much is paid by the companies that produce goods you buy, like your house, car, swimming pool, etc. (if they paid less money in taxes they could charge you less for their stuff and you’d have more in the bank, right?)? Do you even know what corporate tax rates are in the USA? As a matter of fact, they’re among the lowest on the planet…as are the USA [u]personal[/u] income tax rates, by the way.
The amount that shows up in the “gross” on our paycheck is obviously an imaginary figure. That notion that this is somehow all “your” money is simply hallucinatory. It’s simply a contrived manipulation of numbers because the government has the put the figure somewhere, and putting it on your paycheck is the best way for you to know how much it costs to run the government, but it was NEVER “your” money. The ONLY thing that ever matters is the [u]net[/u]. Most rational people already know that. There is no rational argument that can construe those taxes as “your” money that the government “takes from you”. That money was NEVER yours in the first place.
And since your first premise was fundamentally flawed, I summarily discarded the rest of your diatribe. Your analogies are ridiculously flawed, your concept of the Founder’s primary motive for forming the USA is wrong, your bigotry is morbid, and you wear your social phobias on your sleeve. It frightens me to think that you “serve” the public.
The effort required to address each point of your ignorance has exceeded my energy budget.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
An interesting repeated focus on communism and gay marriage. You do know that no communist countries (or even countries with a prior communist government) allow for gay marriage, right?
Marriage equality is actually more of a libertarian position. (As is the notion of any morality being legal so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others). -
Quote from Lux
Quote from CardiacEvent
I know what the terems mean, thanks. And Im sure we all have deep seated issues, particularly those who need the State to be their god and to steal from others in the name of helping the Pooooor.
[blah, blah, blah, fear, hate, fear, hate, etc.]…[i]”steal from others”. [/i]
Just goes to show you how ignorant some people can be. It’s NOT your money. It never WAS your money. It was ALWAYS the government’s money. It’s only on your paycheck because that’s where the government ruled it should come from. But if it didn’t come from your paycheck, they’d pull it from somewhere else. It could just as well come from any number of other sources, including corporate taxes, sales taxes, “fees”, or whatever.
And just to show you how well this game has been honed to a fine art, look at what happened recently with the “75% tax on millionaires” in France. That government shrewdly placed the tax burden on the [u]employer[/u] rather than the employee. This way the French gov’t doesn’t have all the millionaires crying foul about how “they” must pay all that tax. How dumb are they to not realize that if the employer is paying those huge taxes, than it’s that much less showing up on their own paycheck? But they’re no longer calling it “their” money simply because “they” aren’t the ones paying it, their employer is paying it instead.
Do you have any idea how much tax your employer pays? Or how much the insurance industry pays (which contributes to the cost of healthcare and/or which lowers the amount of their revenue that might fuel your own wealth), or how much is paid by the companies that produce goods you buy, like your house, car, swimming pool, etc. (if they paid less money in taxes they could charge you less for their stuff and you’d have more in the bank, right?)? Do you even know what corporate tax rates are in the USA? As a matter of fact, they’re among the lowest on the planet…as are the USA [u]personal[/u] income tax rates, by the way.
The amount that shows up in the “gross” on our paycheck is obviously an imaginary figure. That notion that this is somehow all “your” money is simply hallucinatory. It’s simply a contrived manipulation of numbers because the government has the put the figure somewhere, and putting it on your paycheck is the best way for you to know how much it costs to run the government, but it was NEVER “your” money. The ONLY thing that ever matters is the [u]net[/u]. Most rational people already know that. There is no rational argument that can construe those taxes as “your” money that the government “takes from you”. That money was NEVER yours in the first place.
And since your first premise was fundamentally flawed, I summarily discarded the rest of your diatribe. Your analogies are ridiculously flawed, your concept of the Founder’s primary motive for forming the USA is wrong, your bigotry is morbid, and you wear your social phobias on your sleeve. It frightens me to think that you “serve” the public.
The effort required to address each point of your ignorance has exceeded my energy budget.
Soapy, you have this sick, morbid fixation on this gayiety thing.
-
Quote from Point Man
Soapy, you have this sick, morbid fixation on this gayiety thing.
Your Pointless, homophobic mind obviously hasn’t noticed that [i]”this gayiety thing”[/i] happens to be the topic of the OP, and this discussion now extends through 9 pages consisting of 349 posts that have had 2787 views.
And it’s curious that your quip is a reply to a post in which I never even mentioned a single [i]”gayiety thing”. [/i]You were merely imagining that I was talking about gay issues when I was actually doing no such thing. Rather, I was making a simple sidebar comment about taxes, not about gay marriage. So who here has the gayiety “fixation”, huh?
Seems to me that YOU are the one with a morbid fixation on an ANTI-gayiety thing.
-
So youve desendend to “I’m not one but YOU are!” So much for the Great Inetllect of the Great Richboy Luxie. And if we EVER had any doubt as to the level of Luxies Communist devotion:
[b]Just goes to show you how ignorant some people can be. It’s NOT your money. It never WAS your money. It was ALWAYS the government’s money. It’s only on your paycheck because that’s where the government ruled it should come from.[/b]
All hail the STATE! The most holy and benevolent STATE! With High priest Lord B.O. as its PROPHET! And the Great Richboy Luxie as Chief Syncophant!!!! [b]ALL HAIL!!!! [/b]
This next article isn’t for Luxie or the rest of the politburo but rather for the education of those other 2400 views:
[link=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_denaturalization_of_america.html]http://www.americanthinke…zation_of_america.html[/link]
[blockquote]Today, by contrast, there is a veritable log-jam of American celebrities rushing to the cameras to announce their “alternative lifestyles.” Meanwhile, a TV network knee-jerkingly suspends its most profitable star for merely expressing the biblical moral view of Western history regarding the sexual behavior Rock Hudson tried to conceal, behavior that was still against the law in many American states ten years ago. One wonders whether A&E would fire a homosexual celebrity for saying heterosexuality was distasteful to him. Consider all the feminist academics that pursue acclaim and professional advancement defending the view that heterosexual relations are inherently, “systemically,” oppressive.
Homosexual marriage, a passing joke at parties until a few years ago, is now legal in much of the U.S., as in many other Western progressive countries. Meanwhile, in decisions soon to be upheld by the Supreme Court no doubt, various U.S. jurisdictions have declared that schoolboys who decide they feel more like schoolgirls will be permitted by law to use the girls’ locker room, while the actual girls, unprotected by any new laws of their own, will apparently just have to get used to undressing in the company of boys.
[b]The denaturing of the normal, and the naturalization of the abnormal — twin processes that have slowly eaten up most of the Western heritage — are now, under the supervision of the Obama administration, making a quick dessert of the erstwhile land of courageous frontiersmen and rugged individualists. [/b]
{snip}
As a mask for power lust, progressivism begins with a quandary unknown to genuine political philosophies, namely an inability to ground itself in human nature as observed through the ages. It must therefore [i]refute[/i] history and inherited experience in order to remain tenable.
This is why the first step in progressive theory is always an attempt to disprove or debunk the premises of all prior civilization. [b]Communism, fascism and socialism all justify themselves with the proclamation that humanity has hitherto lived under a net of delusion and systemic injustice, whereas now, through collective submission to unlimited state authority, we may finally create an authentically human way of life. [/b]
And this is why the first step in progressive [i]practice[/i] is the re-education camp. Human nature is stubborn and recalcitrant to brute force. It must be subdued through a carefully administered program of indoctrination aimed at countering the inevitable lessons of normal experience, within the mind-stunting machinery of an artificially restrictive and pre-packaged pseudo-world. In the more subtle, developmental instantiations of the totalitarian state, these re-education camps have a prettified name: [link=http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/abstracted_from_life.html]public schools[/link].
{snip}
The inversion to end all inversions begins here. For while all communities develop out of presuppositions imposed by human nature, [b]one key difference among communities is how they respond to the unnatural or abnormal in their midst. [/b]In the modern world, the distinction is clear: while societies rooted in notions of liberty and reason have tended towards tolerance of the abnormal or “different,” totalitarian societies have typically sought to crush it. The totalitarian society is intolerant almost by definition. Meanwhile, a semi-free nation’s collapse into despotism is indicated by its increasing intolerance. (See[link=http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2013/12/30/the-eclipse-of-tolerance/]Roger Kimball’s[/link] excellent discussion of this issue in relation to current events.)
But a contradiction in modern totalitarianism creates a unique problem. [b]On the one hand, the would-be oppressors can brook no minority opinion or alternative perspectives; this is why they tend to foster dreams of racial and ideological purity, mythologies of “the fatherland,” and the persecution of “transgressors” of all kinds. On the other hand, as we have seen, human nature itself is their feared enemy, as it presents millennia of counterarguments to the progressive state.[/b]
[b]Today’s advanced progressives are as intolerant as their more violent precursors, but they have come to realize that the proper target of their intolerance is not the “unnatural,” but rather nature itself, which must be eliminated if progressivism is to find a secure foothold in men’s souls. Thus the pogroms and purges of earlier totalitarianism become the political correctness thought police of today.[/b]
[b]The chief obstacle to “progress” is normal sexuality’s normal result: [i]the family[/i], nature’s buffer between the child and the state, which weakens the state’s moral authority and therefore dilutes the devotion to the collective that progressive authoritarianism requires. [/b]
{snip}
[b]The knowledge that nature is the source of social norms and the traditions they support is the reason progressive intellectuals are dedicated to persuading the young that “alternative lifestyle” preferences are natural, widespread, and even latent in everyone, if only we would overcome our moral hang-ups and self-denial.[/b] The purpose, to reiterate, is this: progressivism must snip the cord connecting nature to history, because nature asserts itself everywhere as collectivist totalitarianism’s counterargument. The progressive faith therefore demands that men believe the absurd, namely that the entire history of mankind, including the basic motivation that makes the perpetuation of the species possible, is part of a great and universal fraud. The effort to denature civilization begins with burning the evidence.
[b]Then comes the substitution of the abnormal as a “new nature” to replace the old in the artificially emptied souls of the new, unnatural man.[/b] This explains the rush to force children into “alternative lifestyle” education in the schools, and into questioning and doubting their own “gender,” as though the peculiarities of sexual non-conformity just cannot wait until adulthood. It explains the desperate need to convince us that not only homosexuality, but every possible inclination, from pedophilia to cross-dressing, is “natural,” in the sense of being biologically determined.
{snip}
A great society deserves a nobler end than the dreams of Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and their protégé.
[/blockquote] Note for the readers…the louder the Politburo wails and the nastyer they get about me posting this, the more you know Ive hit one big fat nerve with them.
-
AmericanThinker was on a roll today…more insight into the Leftist “mind”:
[link=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/leftism_a_radical_faith.html]http://www.americanthinke…m_a_radical_faith.html[/link]
[blockquote] {snip}
Dante Germino neatly captured Voegelin’s thesis of the left as an atheistic “religion”:
[M[odern Gnosticism has been dedicated to the hubristic attempt to overcome the anxieties and uncertainties of human life by building a terrestrial paradise. However well-intentioned, even the ‘moderate proponents of the ‘progressive’ program bear a heavy responsibility for the disasters of humanity.
{snip}
This “totalitarian religiosity” continues as a secular, politico-centric faith, disdainful of theistic beliefs and contemptuous of those who subscribe to them. It is a faith that, in its historical manifestations, has birthed the murderous tyrannies of the extended twentieth century — tyrannies that have marched under left-wing banners of Marxism, Communism, and National Socialism, or, more generally and descriptively, Coercive Collectivism.
[b]For the past eighty-plus years, America has been heading toward such an elitist tyranny in accordance with such socio-political contrivances as “New Deals,” “Great Societies,” “Fundamental Transformations,” and the steady, piecemeal abrogation of the Constitution.[/b] We have not yet reached the “Heil Hitler” or “Hail Stalin” state, but we’re getting closer with the hope-and-change nihilism of [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory]Critical Theory[/link] and arbitrary [link=http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/characteristics-of-postmodernism-faq.htm]Postmodernist[/link] relativisms (e.g., “situational ethics”).
It is asserted here that this coercive faith has the character of an[b] endemic [link=http://depressiond.org/narcissistic-personality-disorder/]narcissism[/link]. It is an arrogant faith led, and largely populated, by a relentlessly aggressive, power-obsessed political class dedicated to imposing an egalitarian minimalism (“social justice”) on the world.[/b]
While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism]collective narcissism[/link] asserts that one can have a similar excessively high opinion of a group, and that group can function as a narcissistic entity.
[b]In the broadest terms, this narcissistic entity is America’s left-wing political establishment and the purveyor of an authoritarian collectivist faith.[/b] It is a faith largely populated by those in the high-visibility, look-at-me intellectual professions of politics, the arts, teaching, journalism, and various political foundations. All are professions inordinately able to shape the public mind both short- and long-term. As such, it is a propaganda-intensive collective that includes the left-biased “news” [link=http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/]media[/link] and the TV and film industries.
It is further asserted that the operating ethic of this narcissistic confederacy runs from feel-good, busybody, liberal condescension (we know what’s best for everyone) to the arrogance of the more radical (“progressive”) wing, for whom the ends justify the means. Implicitly, such an ethic reflects an overriding need for power and control, which, along with lying, is a trait characteristic of pathological narcissism.
[*][b]Pathological [link=http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/pathological-lying-narcissistic-personality-disorder-traits]lying[/link] is one of the hallmark characteristics of [the] narcissist, who does it out of a need to manipulate and maintain control[i].[/i][/b][*][b]The narcissistic personality disorder trait of … lying [self-exempts] the narcissist from [being] responsible or accountable for questionable actions.[/b] [/ul]
But for the Postmodernist left, [link=http://spectator.org/articles/55121/lies-and-liberalism]lying[/link] is so integral to the furtherance of its authoritarian, revolutionary agenda that the word has effectively been deleted from the descriptive lexicon of leftist behaviors. As Bill Clinton once explained, “[i]t depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” For the political right, however, no such “leniencies” are tolerated, and so has arisen the left’s notorious double-standard.
{snip}
[b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder]Narcissists[/link] have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others, when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. [/b]
One example, of many, is the unjust and absolutely vile personal [link=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/martin-bashir-apologizes-for-disgusting-attack-on-sarah-palin/]smears[/link] that have been, and continue to be, leveled at Sarah Palin and her family — narcissistic shamelessness defined. Such vitriol can only be the expression of a visceral [link=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2482977/posts]hatred[/link] held by the activist left for conservatives who oppose the left’s de facto nullifications of America’s Constitutionally-established liberties.
{snip}
But hate and fear are the obverse sides of the same psychological coin.
Arguably, the fear side of this coin is the transcendent fear of the so-called Human Condition, which plagues us all at some level of consciousness — a fear of our eventual non-being coupled with the relentless uncertainties of life itself. Or, in the bumper-strip vernacular, “Life is hard; then you die.”
[H]undreds of[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/how-the-unrelenting-threat-of-death-shapes-our-behavior/256728/] published[/link] academic papers have shown that worrying about death [influences] everything from our prejudices and voting patterns … [to how] people deal with death by upholding worldviews that are larger and longer-lasting than themselves, and opposing anyone or anything that violates these ‘cultural anxiety buffers’.
Many on the [b]right[/b] find solace and guidance through the sensed presence of a [b]transcendent Intelligence at the root of things[/b] and structure their lives accordingly. [b]The secular-narcissistic left[/b] dismisses this outlook as f[b]anciful nonsense while working relentlessly to establish its own fanciful nonsense of fabricating a homogenous earthly Eden out of highly disparate human material.[/b]
{snip}
One [link=http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/55948/CPL_WP_06_04_Rosenthal.pdf?sequence=1]source[/link] put it this way:
[*][N]arcissists are thought to seek leadership positions specifically to garner power that enables them to ‘structure an external world’ that supports their grandiose needs and visions.[*]What [characterizes] these [narcissistic leaders] … is that ultimately, their leadership is driven by their own personal egotistical needs for power and admiration rather than by an empathic concern for the constituents they lead.[*][N]arcissists are just the type of leader to falter over time. Not only does their narcissism fuel their poor decision-making, but their [acquired] power … fuels their narcissism, driving a downward spiral into poor leadership. [/ul] {snip}
The great tragedies of history occur when men or women with extreme or deviant personality traits rise to a position of great power from whence they can do great [link=http://www.vakkur.com/hx/hit_len_stal.html]damage[/link].
[/blockquote]-
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy —– that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith
-
“[M[odern Gnosticism”
?????
Calling Dan Brown. Calling Opus Dei.-
Selfish? How about stealing from the “rich” to pay for your delusional narcissism?
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Selfish? How about stealing from the “rich” to pay for your delusional narcissism?
USA taxes currently are among the lowest of all developed countries. Get your facts straight.
-
Non sequitur, buddy. And even if yur little factoid did matter, most if the places that have Higher taxes are already socialist dystopias like you salivate over makin us into.
-
Gnosis….knowledge.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Good to see the guns are still blazing here … Although I’m not so sure it’s friendly fire
-
Holder extends full federal legal protection to same-sex couples.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-08/holder-to-detail-new-u-s-legal-protections-for-same-sex-couples.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…-same-sex-couples.html[/link]
Same-sex married couples will receive many of the same federal legal protections and benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts under [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/justice-department/]Justice Department[/link] guidelines to be issued tomorrow, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
The moves will affect procedures in U.S. courtrooms and the aid provided surviving spouses of slain law officers, among other matters.
The policy will formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/same–sex-marriages/]same-sex marriages[/link] full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law, Holder said in remarks yesterday in [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/]New York[/link] City.
The change will apply to same-sex couples residing in states where such marriages are not recognized. It also represents the first time the Justice Department has officially interpreted the words spouse and marriage in federal laws it enforces to apply to same-sex couples.
-
Quote from dergon
Holder extends full federal legal protection to same-sex couples.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-08/holder-to-detail-new-u-s-legal-protections-for-same-sex-couples.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…-same-sex-couples.html[/link]
Same-sex married couples will receive many of the same federal legal protections and benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts under [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/justice-department/]Justice Department[/link] guidelines to be issued tomorrow, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
The moves will affect procedures in U.S. courtrooms and the aid provided surviving spouses of slain law officers, among other matters.
The policy will formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/same–sex-marriages/]same-sex marriages[/link] full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law, Holder said in remarks yesterday in [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/]New York[/link] City.
The change will apply to same-sex couples residing in states where such marriages are not recognized. It also represents the first time the Justice Department has officially interpreted the words spouse and marriage in federal laws it enforces to apply to same-sex couples.
To hell with states rights. Those insignificant state citizens are of no importance to we bleeding hearts libs from chicago. Why does Congress not do something to stop these Socialists. I don’t know who I disapprove of more, those that are light-in-the-loafers or demo-crites. At this point in this failed social experiment of a presidency, the majority of Americans believe as I do. Hope we can withstand the remainder of this socialists regime.
-
I can see how this will anger conservatives and the states right crowd. This is without a doubt part of Obama’s “phone and pen” (mostly pen) to accomplish as much of his agenda as he can with a recalcitrant House.
As a progressive I support the decision as the right thing to do, but I think it is really more about buoying up support from the progressive Democratic party base trying to keep up morale into midterms. But the administration does have to walk a bit of fine line to keep independents in the mainstream from buying the “rule by decree” narrative being sold by the Right.
I think the GOP will hit back on executive action but it will mostly be just shouting. House might pass some bill to try to curb his effort but it won’t go anywhere until/unless GOP gets the 2014 senate. -
Pointless:
Just because a state enacts a law does not make the law legal on the federal level. States cannot take the initiative to define words like spouse and marriage to be more constrained than their federal counterparts. States may not ignore federal law, and it is illegal for any state to enact a law that conflicts with the Constitution. That’s why nullification is illegal.
But the traitors among us have a different opinion about such things when federal law doesn’t sufficiently alleviate their deep phobias.
And what exactly do you mean by “light-in-the-loafers” in the context of your comment?
-
[b]”And what exactly do you mean by “light-in-the-loafers” in the context of your comment?” [/b]
Soapy, soapy, soapy, you of all people must know what that means. You are, after all a demo-crite lemming who revels in this liberal gaiety..-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”And what exactly do you mean by “light-in-the-loafers” in the context of your comment?” [/b]
Soapy, soapy, soapy, you of all people must know what that means. You are, after all a demo-crite lemming who revels in this liberal gaiety..As usual, you avoid the issue, deflect , and cowardly withhold what you are really thinking, post after post after post.
Pointless.
-
Quote from PointMan
Why does Congress not do something to stop these Socialists.
The courts have largely upheld broad executive branch authority in executive orders. The GOP knows this. They could sue over the issue, but it wouldn’t go far likely.
The other option is to relegislate and address areas where they feel the executive has acted against congression will. For now though there is only the House who would favor that. Perhaps if the GOP takes the Senate you will see some movement in that direction in 2015.
the majority of Americans believe as I do
Since you didn’t really make any statement on policy except mentioning “light in the loafers” and “socialism” I guess I’ll have to assume those are the topics on which you think you majority backing of Americans.
[link=http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/]http://features.pewforum….ex-marriage-attitudes/[/link]
52% of Americans favored the right to marry in all 50 states. Today, there is more support for same-sex marriage than opposition to it.
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/161927/majority-wealth-evenly-distributed.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/pol…venly-distributed.aspx[/link]
About six in 10 Americans believe that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people in the U.S., while one-third think the current distribution is fair.
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from PointMan
Why does Congress not do something to stop these Socialists.
The courts have largely upheld broad executive branch authority in executive orders. The GOP knows this. They could sue over the issue, but it wouldn’t go far likely.
The other option is to relegislate and address areas where they feel the executive has acted against congression will. For now though there is only the House who would favor that. Perhaps if the GOP takes the Senate you will see some movement in that direction in 2015.
the majority of Americans believe as I do
Since you didn’t really make any statement on policy except mentioning “light in the loafers” and “socialism” I guess I’ll have to assume those are the topics on which you think you majority backing of Americans.
[link=http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/]http://features.pewforum….ex-marriage-attitudes/[/link]
52% of Americans favored the right to marry in all 50 states. Today, there is more support for same-sex marriage than opposition to it.[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/161927/majority-wealth-evenly-distributed.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/pol…venly-distributed.aspx[/link]
About six in 10 Americans believe that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people in the U.S., while one-third think the current distribution is fair.
I’m in favor of light loafers. They’re comfortable shoes. I heard something interesting on the radio this morning. Professor Stephen Cohen said that the reason Putin is/was popular in Russia is that he corrected the unbalance of the super rich and basically everyone else. It was an interesting interview. Learned some things about Russia(ns) I never realized.
-
-
-
-
-
I Believe Colorado and Washington are being allowed to exercise quite a bit of state’s right with the legal cannabis
Quote from Point Man
Quote from dergon
Holder extends full federal legal protection to same-sex couples.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-08/holder-to-detail-new-u-s-legal-protections-for-same-sex-couples.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…-same-sex-couples.html[/link]
Same-sex married couples will receive many of the same federal legal protections and benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts under [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/justice-department/]Justice Department[/link] guidelines to be issued tomorrow, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
The moves will affect procedures in U.S. courtrooms and the aid provided surviving spouses of slain law officers, among other matters.
The policy will formally instruct all Justice Department employees to give lawful [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/same–sex-marriages/]same-sex marriages[/link] full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law, Holder said in remarks yesterday in [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/]New York[/link] City.
The change will apply to same-sex couples residing in states where such marriages are not recognized. It also represents the first time the Justice Department has officially interpreted the words spouse and marriage in federal laws it enforces to apply to same-sex couples.
To hell with states rights. Those insignificant state citizens are of no importance to we bleeding hearts libs from chicago. Why does Congress not do something to stop these Socialists. I don’t know who I disapprove of more, those that are light-in-the-loafers or demo-crites. At this point in this failed social experiment of a presidency, the majority of Americans believe as I do. Hope we can withstand the remainder of this socialists regime.
-
[link=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-nevada-gaymarriage-idUSBREA1A01F20140211]http://www.reuters.com/ar…-idUSBREA1A01F20140211[/link]
Nevada won’t defend the State’s Gay Marriage ban, agreeing that it violates equal protections clause.
[blockquote][i][b][/b][/i]
In supporting { Nevada Attorney General} Masto’s move, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, who is seeking re-election this year, said the state’s ban would not hold up to legal scrutiny.
“Based upon the advice of the attorney general’s office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court,” Sandoval, a Republican, said of the decision.[/blockquote]
Man, I guess I am just obsessed with gaiety this week.
-
[b]”Man, I guess I am just obsessed with gaiety this week.” [/b]
Yeah!! I’d say that’s a lib thing – a cause of the day. Let the “bleedin’ hearts” seep.-
[attachment=0]
-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”Man, I guess I am just obsessed with gaiety this week.” [/b]
Yeah!! I’d say that’s a lib thing – a cause of the day. Let the “bleedin’ hearts” seep.The fact that you are so thoroughly convinced that your comment was an insult speaks volumes.
But go ahead, Pointless, just continue to deflect away from the point and keep reminding us of your deep phobias.
Look in the mirror lately?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Sam is “light in the loafers” too.
So what.-
Quote from Frumious
Michael Sam is “light in the loafers” too.
So what.
Not a big deal. Probably won’t fly with all the players in the locker room, assuming he makes the NFL.-
[size=”5″][b]PANIC! HE WANTS ME![/b][/size]
Of course he does, who doesn’t?
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/bruni-panic-in-the-locker-room.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…n-the-locker-room.html[/link]
Sports Illustrated quoted an unnamed assistant coach who [i]also[/i] brought up the fabled sanctum of Tinactin and testosterone. Theres nothing more sensitive than the heartbeat of the locker room, he said. If you knowingly bring someone in there with that sexual orientation, how are the other guys going to deal with it?
To his question, a few of my own: When did the locker room become such a delicate ecosystem? Is it inhabited by athletes or orchids? And how is it that gladiators who dont flinch when a 300-pound mountain of flesh in shoulder pads comes roaring toward them start to quiver at the thought of a homosexual under a nearby nozzle? They may be physical giants, but at least a few of them are psychological pipsqueaks.
And theyre surprisingly blunt and Paleolithic. When NFL Networks Andrea Kremer recently brought up the possibility of an openly gay player with Jonathan Vilma, a New Orleans Saints linebacker, [link=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap2000000321912/The-culture-of-the-NFL-locker-room]he said[/link]: [b]Imagine if hes the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, naked, taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me.[/b]
[b]How am I supposed to respond? Vilma added.[/b]
[b]Well, a squeal would be unmanly, Mace might not be enough[/b] and N.F.L. players tend to use their firearms away from the stadium, so Id advise him to do what countless females of our species have done with leering males through history. Step away. Move on. [b]Dare I say woman up?[/b]
[b]Or Vilma could use a line [link=http://www.outsports.com/2014/2/3/5376586/jonathan-vilma-gay-shower]suggested by the sports journalist Cyd Zeigler[/link] on the website Outsports.com: Im so telling your boyfriend you stole a peek.[/b]
-
Quote from Frumious
[size=”5″][b]PANIC! HE WANTS ME![/b][/size]
Of course he does, who doesn’t?
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/bruni-panic-in-the-locker-room.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…n-the-locker-room.html[/link]
Sports Illustrated quoted an unnamed assistant coach who [i]also[/i] brought up the fabled sanctum of Tinactin and testosterone. Theres nothing more sensitive than the heartbeat of the locker room, he said. If you knowingly bring someone in there with that sexual orientation, how are the other guys going to deal with it?
To his question, a few of my own: When did the locker room become such a delicate ecosystem? Is it inhabited by athletes or orchids? And how is it that gladiators who dont flinch when a 300-pound mountain of flesh in shoulder pads comes roaring toward them start to quiver at the thought of a homosexual under a nearby nozzle? They may be physical giants, but at least a few of them are psychological pipsqueaks.
And theyre surprisingly blunt and Paleolithic. When NFL Networks Andrea Kremer recently brought up the possibility of an openly gay player with Jonathan Vilma, a New Orleans Saints linebacker, [link=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap2000000321912/The-culture-of-the-NFL-locker-room]he said[/link]: [b]Imagine if hes the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, naked, taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me.[/b]
[b]How am I supposed to respond? Vilma added.[/b]
[b]Well, a squeal would be unmanly, Mace might not be enough[/b] and N.F.L. players tend to use their firearms away from the stadium, so Id advise him to do what countless females of our species have done with leering males through history. Step away. Move on. [b]Dare I say woman up?[/b]
[b]Or Vilma could use a line [link=http://www.outsports.com/2014/2/3/5376586/jonathan-vilma-gay-shower]suggested by the sports journalist Cyd Zeigler[/link] on the website Outsports.com: Im so telling your boyfriend you stole a peek.[/b]This must be written by someone who’s never played a sport where you share a locker room with a bunch of dudes. I’m OK with an openly gay athlete, but I can see the Vilma view point of ‘don’t make me shower with him’ also.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’m OK with an openly gay athlete, but I can see the Vilma view point of ‘don’t make me shower with him’ also.
For professional sports, military, and show business, your body is not your own, it is under contract, and so you have no basis for concerns about exposing it to others in that line of work.
My opinion.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’m OK with an openly gay athlete, but I can see the Vilma view point of ‘don’t make me shower with him’ also.
For professional sports, military, and show business, your body is not your own, it is under contract, and so you have no basis for concerns about exposing it to others in that line of work.
My opinion.
I’m not sure that argument works. If I’m a producer of a movie with Scarlett Johanson and she’s under contract, can I watch her in the changing room? I could just as easily see the argument that it creates a hostile work environment. It’s gray area.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[dupe]
