What to do about the gays?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Poll shows growing California support for gay marriage
By LISA LEFF

(AP) — More California voters now support allowing same-sex marriage than oppose it, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90UOE5O1

[Harlan Huckleby]

I read the rest of that article, and there is another survey that showed just the opposite result. So it remains to be seen what California is really gonna do.

What is clear is that there is no consensus on what "marriage" should mean, and no consensus is likely to emerge for generations, if ever. Whether 51% of the country believes one way or the other hardly settles anything. People are impossibly divided, largely along religous lines. It seems obvious to me that the gay movement is making a mistake pressing for marriage. Civil unions are more appropriate. I think the word "marriage" should be defined by religious groups according to their own beliefs, and the state should ONLY confer civil unions, to either straight or gay couples.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's a California poll--which is going to be slanted much more for gay marriage than a national poll.

Why can't we just agree on gay civil unions and no gay marriage and get it over with?

[Tarlam!]

Why can't we just agree on gay civil unions and no gay marriage and get it over with?

Because gays are so romantic. They wanna be brides and say "I do".

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think gays have made a mistake. I understand emotionally why they demand marriage as a matter of principle. But there is no hurry. So what if it takes a couple more generations? Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?

[texaspackerbacker]

I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that this is no big deal--basically a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. They really aren't hurting anybody.

I'd still like to see homosexuality labeled an abomination--legal, but taught to be wrong/bad--kinda like gambling, smoking, prostitution in some areas, etc., but even that isn't really that important.

[Tarlam!]

We're turning full circle on this issue. I don't give a toss if Gays marry. i just don't want 'em raising kids.

But guys, we've done this before...

[Deputy Nutz]

I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that this is no big deal--basically a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. They really aren't hurting anybody.

I'd still like to see homosexuality labeled an abomination--legal, but taught to be wrong/bad--kinda like gambling, smoking, prostitution in some areas, etc., but even that isn't really that important.

Now you have crossed the line.

[the_idle_threat]

Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?

Change "pomp" to "pomp and cash-grab," and you have my definition.

Let gays marry. So what if they do?

What I don't get is this: I've always been sold the idea that conservatives are all about people being responsible and making commitments. But when a gay couple wants to be responsible to each other and make a commitment, it's "no marriage or civil unions for you!" And then anti-gay conservatives rip on gays for supposedly being promiscuous and unable/unwilling to form commitments.

I can understand the religious roadblock to calling gay unions "marriage." Marriage has historically been a church-sanctioned thing and gay marriage goes against pretty much any religious teaching (nevermind the fact that "religious" people do all kinds of things that go against religious teaching). So I agree with Harlan that the best compromise is to sanction civil unions that give all the same legal rights as marriage.

But when the religious types get all up in arms about gay marriage and pass "defense of marriage" constitutional bans on it (an abuse of democracy if I ever saw it) why do they usually also ban civil unions (as Wisconsin's amendment did)? How do civil unions threaten marriage? They don't.

[LL2]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

[Freak Out]

WTF? No Poll? :lol:

[Deputy Nutz]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

[Tarlam!]

Because it's friggin' wrong, nutz. Basta!

[bobblehead]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

[Deputy Nutz]

Because it's friggin' wrong, nutz. Basta!

Well I disagree. So far you tell me it is wrong but even in the last thread that refered to this topic you wouldn't put your finger on it, you wouldn't explain your reasoning why it is wrong, so please do tell all of your lovely stereotypes of gays.

[Deputy Nutz]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.

So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

well, that's mighty white of ya, LL2! :lol: Might be too much work for the police to force them into separate appartments anyway.

[hoosier]

What to do about the gays?

Harlan, why not just condense your recent threads into one? It would ask: Who's happier (less miserable), Bush supporters or gays? Not to say, of course, that one can't be the other.

[Scott Campbell]

...........so please do tell all of your lovely stereotypes of gays.



Well, they're snappy dressers.

[Deputy Nutz]

...........so please do tell all of your lovely stereotypes of gays.



Well, they're snappy dressers.

True so at least their kids would be outfitted with extremely nice clothes and footwear.

[bobblehead]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.

So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.

Now its quite a stretch to say I said or even implied that. I said marriage as an institution HISTORICALLY was founded in and by church. I do not discount any marriage that was performed by a judge (or even your brother, in your eyes you and your wife are married and my opinion matters very little).

What I said is, that gays deserve all the rights of a married couple but to change the definition of marriage I can understand being against (i personally don't care) given the origin and history of the institution of marriage.

As far as being against giving them a loving home....I didn't say that either, a child molester could argue he loves a child therefore deserves to adopt one, but I doubt you would even consider that for a second. I am saying that homosexual unions are not the norm, either societally or by nature and to allow them to adopt is unfair to the child. Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age. Many studies show that children growing up in a normal household end up better adjusted/happier/more successful ect.

My general view of marriage in general is pretty out their anyway, it was an institution designed to basically give women security. It is a very outdated concept and the idea of state/church backed marriage to me is kinda silly. If you love your wife and are committed to spending your life with her a piece of paper isn't going to mean a hill of beans to either of you. My opinion on whether it should be considered "marriage" because of who performed the ceremony should matter even less.

The main reason gays are fighting for gay marriage is to further public acceptance, and I think they are going about it the wrong way. It is simply aggravating some people who think they have rights and should be treated fairly, into actually being combative again. (i'm not one of those people, again, I don't care) I only care about children being raised in as good an environment as possible to make them well adjusted adults.

[Deputy Nutz]

So Because gay marriage and child raising isn't the norm it shouldn't be allowed? There was a time and still many think this way that marriage and child raising should be done between a man and woman of the same race, and anything outside of that wasn't considered the norm. Times change, what is considered normal in society changes.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I agree that marriage is founded in religion. So why is the state conferring marriages?

I think people should have the option of being married according to the rules of their church or wiccan coven, or having a CIVIL union performed by our CIVIL government.

[MJZiggy]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

There was a kid in my kid's school being raised by a lesbian couple and I gotta tell you, not only was that a very well adjusted child, the rest of the kids really didn't give a flying f*ck about it. And both of the parents helped with the PTA, activities and all that kind of stuff. They did a far better job with their kid than the parents of the kid who thought it was ok to choke another child with a jump rope when she didn't get her way...

[Partial]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.

So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.

How loving can a home be if the child resents the hell out of his two parents for the choices that they made?

Homosexual is not natural. I don't have a problem with it, but to think marriage should be allowed is ridiculous. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony.

a Homosexual couple should not be able to raise children because it teaches them the wrong message. Then again, with 50+% of families divorced I guess the right message has been blown out of the water long ago.

Why didn't you get married in a church?

[Partial]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

Whoa whoa whoa... back up.. beep beep beep...

Make wimps out of children?

You're telling me two homos are going to produce more manly and less wimpy children than a heterosexual couple?

The libs and their accept everyone and teasing attitude is what makes kids whimpy. Note that all the emo pussies who go around touting their barack obama flags.

[Partial]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

There was a kid in my kid's school being raised by a lesbian couple and I gotta tell you, not only was that a very well adjusted child, the rest of the kids really didn't give a flying f*ck about it. And both of the parents helped with the PTA, activities and all that kind of stuff. They did a far better job with their kid than the parents of the kid who thought it was ok to choke another child with a jump rope when she didn't get her way...

One of my good friends was raised by 4 lesbians. Odd situation, but he turned out to be a good guy, but isn't very driven and is not going to college or anything like that. Anyway, he was a good kid, but he missed out on a lot of stuff in his childhood because he wasn't an active participant in school activities because his parents didn't want to make their business everyone elses and make the life harder on the kid.

He missed out.

[MJZiggy]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

[Partial]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

There was a kid in my kid's school being raised by a lesbian couple and I gotta tell you, not only was that a very well adjusted child, the rest of the kids really didn't give a flying f*ck about it. And both of the parents helped with the PTA, activities and all that kind of stuff. They did a far better job with their kid than the parents of the kid who thought it was ok to choke another child with a jump rope when she didn't get her way...

I have no doubt about your story. I think many of us conflate our childhood with what is going on now. Kids today are much different..they grew up with gay being part of society...be it on TV or just knowing that certain people are gay. THey are also much more aware of things...especially sex. They are also much more advanced than..well, at least me. THe girls are much more aggressive and..well, i'm JUST PISSED THAT I MISSED OUT ON SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE 8TH GRADERS!! :oops:

Or, perhaps those kids at your kids school were like us...they wanted to visit that kid's home for some grailee action. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.

So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.

How loving can a home be if the child resents the hell out of his two parents for the choices that they made?

Homosexual is not natural. I don't have a problem with it, but to think marriage should be allowed is ridiculous. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony.

a Homosexual couple should not be able to raise children because it teaches them the wrong message. Then again, with 50+% of families divorced I guess the right message has been blown out of the water long ago.

Why didn't you get married in a church?

How is homosexuality not natural. Of course it is. It exists in nature..therefore it is natural.

It isn't the norm, but is completely natural.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

Whoa whoa whoa... back up.. beep beep beep...

Make wimps out of children?

You're telling me two homos are going to produce more manly and less wimpy children than a heterosexual couple?

The libs and their accept everyone and teasing attitude is what makes kids whimpy. Note that all the emo pussies who go around touting their barack obama flags.

My god, you are dense.

Bobble was against homo marriage because the kid would get teased...that sounds awfully PC to me. Teasing and being able to handle it makes you tough.

As for how kids turn out....more stupidity. They are plenty of tough gay guys..perhaps you've just never met them.

I guess all those gays and sensitive liberals sprang from nowhere..not the result of heterosexual unions.

Lastly, "more manly"...lol...perhaps you should determine what exactly is manly.

[MJZiggy]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

[hoosier]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

There was a kid in my kid's school being raised by a lesbian couple and I gotta tell you, not only was that a very well adjusted child, the rest of the kids really didn't give a flying f*ck about it. And both of the parents helped with the PTA, activities and all that kind of stuff. They did a far better job with their kid than the parents of the kid who thought it was ok to choke another child with a jump rope when she didn't get her way...

Good point. The generation that's coming of age now is (with a few notable exceptions) remarkably tolerant and unflappable when it comes to social differences and non-traditional practices.

[Partial]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

[MJZiggy]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

It's not one instance, it's 500. Not one kid of the 500 in the school cared. And everything else I've read and heard lately says that the teens are curious as to what the hell the supposed adults are all up in arms about. As to adoption, a white couple adopts a black child, or an Asian child. So that should be outlawed too because it's pretty obvious, right? Those kids didn't have any say in the matter either. Great idea. Let's just keep all the Chinese girls from having loving families because people might notice they're adopted. (keep in mind that some Chinese couples choose selective abortion to make sure they have boys.)

[GrnBay007]

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter.

I have very mixed feelings on the subject here, so not getting involved. Just wanted to point out something about the above statement. A child also has no say in the matter if the parents are alcoholics, drug addicts, abusers...... Lots of dysfunctional parents fly under the radar of authorities and the children learn that behavior from day one.

[Bretsky]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

It's not one instance, it's 500. Not one kid of the 500 in the school cared. And everything else I've read and heard lately says that the teens are curious as to what the hell the supposed adults are all up in arms about. As to adoption, a white couple adopts a black child, or an Asian child. So that should be outlawed too because it's pretty obvious, right? Those kids didn't have any say in the matter either. Great idea. Let's just keep all the Chinese girls from having loving families because people might notice they're adopted. (keep in mind that some Chinese couples choose selective abortion to make sure they have boys.)

Now how would you know that not one kind in five hundred cared ? That would seem to be an impossible thing to support.

In general, I would agree with Partial here; I think these kids will get targeted. They certainly would in my area.

OK; I will bow out again.

There is a reason I don't get into the RR much; I don't want the drama, emotions, or controversy that goes with real life things.

[MJZiggy]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

[bobblehead]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

Whoa whoa whoa... back up.. beep beep beep...

Make wimps out of children?

You're telling me two homos are going to produce more manly and less wimpy children than a heterosexual couple?

The libs and their accept everyone and teasing attitude is what makes kids whimpy. Note that all the emo pussies who go around touting their barack obama flags.

My god, you are dense.

Bobble was against homo marriage because the kid would get teased...that sounds awfully PC to me. Teasing and being able to handle it makes you tough.

As for how kids turn out....more stupidity. They are plenty of tough gay guys..perhaps you've just never met them.

I guess all those gays and sensitive liberals sprang from nowhere..not the result of heterosexual unions.

Lastly, "more manly"...lol...perhaps you should determine what exactly is manly.

I didn't say I was against homo marriage, I said I was FOR civil unions and I didn't care as far as marriage goes, but I understood people being against redefining the word. I said I was against them adopting because it puts undo hardship on the kid.

You sarcastically put in that interfaith marriages and interracial marriages shoulddn't be allowed either (I assume you meant shouldn't be allowed children cuz that is actually what I was against.) There was a time when the country felt that way and allowing a mixed race couple to adopt was unheard of, we have moved past that.

NOW, I grant that you may be correct that todays kids don't care and its more acceptable to them, just as inter racial marriage is more acceptable to our generation, and if you are right, when those kids get older and dominate the legislature and voting block the law will reflect it, and I will be fine with it then. If you could prove to me that they are fine with it and it wouldn't be an undue burden on the child I would be fine with it now. Please don't think I am making a judgement on homosexuals or their lifestyles just because I think simply instituting a civil union to give them all the legal rights of a married couple would be a simple solution. (or because other conservatives posting here are making such judgements)

I think tyrone, that at some point your disdain for conservatives will end and you will stop reading into peoples words (at least mine), I hope so, because I find you somewhat intelligent and capable of making a point. You make a good one here, albeit in a roundabout way. I am not a "hate filled monger" or any of the other things conservatives are labeled.

[Bretsky]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

[MJZiggy]

I don't remember if your little ones are old enough for school, but check out the kids. I think you're remembering from when you were in school, but it's a different wold and they're different people than we were. To be honest, before I saw it for myself, I'd have probably shared your opinion, but apparently it only matters to them if we make a big-ass deal about it.

[bobblehead]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

Not that I am explicitly saying you are wrong, but there are still many factors you can't be sure/aware of. Does the kid ask mommys questions about other households showing he is confused? Can you be sure that no kid says anything when its just the 2 of them in the bathroom? I think trying to judge what is going on with a kid from the outside is nearly impossible.

You could be very right and the kid isn't suffering at all from being put in that situation, but that verdict won't be in for several years. I'm just not in favor of experimenting with kids. I'd rather they are put into traditional households and homosexuals get their equal rights and acceptance in other areas...which I am all for.

I also accept the point that a lot of kids get put into shitty environments in hetero households and I'm all for any solution to that problem, but again, saying someone else has it tough so its ok to INTENTIONALLY put someone in a tough position is a pretty weak arguement.

[Harlan Huckleby]

NOW, I grant that you may be correct that todays kids don't care and its more acceptable to them, just as inter racial marriage is more acceptable to our generation, and if you are right, when those kids get older and dominate the legislature and voting block the law will reflect it, and I will be fine with it then.

Laws against interracial marriage didn't change because the voters and legislators changed their minds. The laws changed because the courts struck them down. I suspect those laws would have hung on for another 30 years in some states without intervention by the courts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Maybe it is time to stand up against such behavior by kids. Its been done before. Adults and the schools can do a lot.

[bobblehead]

NOW, I grant that you may be correct that todays kids don't care and its more acceptable to them, just as inter racial marriage is more acceptable to our generation, and if you are right, when those kids get older and dominate the legislature and voting block the law will reflect it, and I will be fine with it then.

Laws against interracial marriage didn't change because the voters and legislators changed their minds. The laws changed because the courts struck them down. I suspect those laws would have hung on for another 30 years in some states without intervention by the courts.

People put politicians and judges in place, and the judges and politicians they put in place tend to reflect their views...and again, i was more referring to adoption which interacial couples weren't afforded back in the day.

[bobblehead]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Maybe it is time to stand up against such behavior by kids. Its been done before. Adults and the schools can do a lot.

Todays liberals are making it nearly impossible to spank your kid for being naughty, what kind of "stand up" were you thinking? Not that I am disagreeing with you, I think its a parents responsibility to teach a kid NOT to tease and/or harass and I think a parent should be held responsible for their kids behavior. Problem is we live in the nanny state, and its ever harder to actually discipline a kid.

[Partial]

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter.

I have very mixed feelings on the subject here, so not getting involved. Just wanted to point out something about the above statement. A child also has no say in the matter if the parents are alcoholics, drug addicts, abusers...... Lots of dysfunctional parents fly under the radar of authorities and the children learn that behavior from day one.

I agree, but in the case of adoption those people would never be allowed to adopt.

[Partial]

I don't remember if your little ones are old enough for school, but check out the kids. I think you're remembering from when you were in school, but it's a different wold and they're different people than we were. To be honest, before I saw it for myself, I'd have probably shared your opinion, but apparently it only matters to them if we make a big-ass deal about it.

I was in Elementary school as recently as 12 years ago, and in my day kids in elementary and middle school, and even early high schoolers, would probably make life hell for the kid.

[MJZiggy]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Maybe it is time to stand up against such behavior by kids. Its been done before. Adults and the schools can do a lot.

Todays liberals are making it nearly impossible to spank your kid for being naughty, what kind of "stand up" were you thinking? Not that I am disagreeing with you, I think its a parents responsibility to teach a kid NOT to tease and/or harass and I think a parent should be held responsible for their kids behavior. Problem is we live in the nanny state, and its ever harder to actually discipline a kid.

You can instill one HELL of a lot of discipline into a kid without hitting him. It just takes a little imagination, but that's a whole other topic.

[3irty1]

I generally think that anyone who wants to adopt a child is doing it for the right reason. A loving home I feel is more important for a child than is not being teased at school.

I'm not too keen on the marriage thing though. Marriage is disrespected in this country enough as it is. If its that important to them they can find a place to get married. People say they wouldn't be hurting anyone by getting married but I say they aren't getting hurt by not being allowed to.

[Deputy Nutz]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.

I guess my wife and I are not "married" because we were wed outside of any religious ceremony. Great! I guess you should be the one to tell her that, I am not.

So you are against giving a child a loving home because he will be made fun of? Maybe they should only allow gay couples to wed and raise children in New England States where making fun of someone is illegal.

How loving can a home be if the child resents the hell out of his two parents for the choices that they made?

Homosexual is not natural. I don't have a problem with it, but to think marriage should be allowed is ridiculous. Marriage started out as a religious ceremony.

a Homosexual couple should not be able to raise children because it teaches them the wrong message. Then again, with 50+% of families divorced I guess the right message has been blown out of the water long ago.

Why didn't you get married in a church?

Who says it is not natural? Do think other guys just want to ream each other's asses for a good time? I am not going to get into the biological vers nurture agrument with you but your ideas about the subject are all opinion based. It is the same as Tarlam telling me that, "it just isn't right".

Regardless if Partial believes that it is unnatural or not the fact is that they are grown adults that want to raise a child. Take sexual orientation out of it for a moment, then think about two people of the same sex, that are most likely very successful in their employment, well adjusted people, cultured, and have provided a stable environment for a child. Would you turn them down without factoring in their sexual preference?

[Deputy Nutz]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Like I said, out East it is illegal to tease.

[Deputy Nutz]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Understood, but do you really think a gay couple would want to raise a kid in that area, knowing how people think and how they would act towards their kid? Most gay couple try to live in a more socially liberal environment.

[Deputy Nutz]

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter.

I have very mixed feelings on the subject here, so not getting involved. Just wanted to point out something about the above statement. A child also has no say in the matter if the parents are alcoholics, drug addicts, abusers...... Lots of dysfunctional parents fly under the radar of authorities and the children learn that behavior from day one.

I agree, but in the case of adoption those people would never be allowed to adopt.

How do you know? See Partial what you fail to realize that not very many gay couples that want to adopt have the opportunity to adopt American children, most cases they go to other countries to adopt. Like the above post people that have certain dysfunction in life do well in some cases to hide it. Shit they usually don't all they have to do is have sex and pop out a kid that they can mistreat, and undervalue.

[Zool]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

[Bretsky]

Ok, B. Let me clarify. Not one of them cared enough to say something to the kid in question which seems to be what everyone is worried about, isn't it? This is a happy, well adjusted kid we're talking about here which people are insinuating would be difficult to do under the burden of all of this (nonexistent) harassment from 500 kids who have never cared enough to say a word about it.

In my area there would be harrassment everywhere and if somebody would ask me I'd think the environment you portray would be very rare

Like I said, out East it is illegal to tease.

YUP

dem backward ass Easteners have the no tease rule

[Deputy Nutz]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

[Zool]

The single straight man can find a woman and procreate. Tab A into slot C will, as far as I know, never produce a kid.

How about we let planned parenthood give condoms away and make them readily available for everyone. People are going to have sex. There's just no getting around it. Maybe we could prevent a pregnancy or 80000 a year instead of dealing with the aftermath? Lets be proactive people.

[Deputy Nutz]

The single straight man can find a woman and procreate. Tab A into slot C will, as far as I know, never produce a kid.

How about we let planned parenthood give condoms away and make them readily available for everyone. People are going to have sex. There's just no getting around it. Maybe we could prevent a pregnancy or 80000 a year instead of dealing with the aftermath? Lets be proactive people.

Ok, I am all for subsidizing abortion, wouldn't that just be easier. Stopping people from making a mistake is nearly impossible, fixing their mistake is possible.

[Zool]

I would totally take a male birth control pill if it actually worked and didnt make my balls fall off.

[bobblehead]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

[cpk1994]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.THats coming a lot quicker than you think. As soon as that pregnant man that was on Oprah gives birth.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think I have any issues with a gay couple adopting, assuming they meet all the other required adoption standards. Though Harlan is also on this side of the issue so I just have to assume that I'm wrong on this one.

[sooner6600]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GrnBay007]

Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you)

What in the world did you mean by that statement?




PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

When you say there are more couples looking to adopt than kids.......do you mean infants? I can't believe you could possibly mean all minor children.

[hoosier]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?

[Deputy Nutz]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

Actually most gay couples have to go over seas to adopt, so your last argument doesn't really hold any water. Adopting a white USA born infant in this country is nearly impossible for an upstanding white couple.

[Scott Campbell]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?


I think he's just talking about the practical side of gays wanting legal unions.

[sooner6600]

Thanks Scott; you got it correct.

[hoosier]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?


I think he's just talking about the practical side of gays wanting legal unions.

So are these considerations raised as an argument against civil unions for gays? These factors are no different from what happens when heterosexuals marry.

[3irty1]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one actually cares about the legal stuff otherwise gays would be trying to improve civil unions to make them more convenient rather than speak out for a legally recognized marriage. They problem is that gay couples don't want their love to be viewed as inferior than that of a straight couple.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?


I think he's just talking about the practical side of gays wanting legal unions.

So are these considerations raised as an argument against civil unions for gays? These factors are no different from what happens when heterosexuals marry.

I share your confusion. It sounds like sooner is listing justifications for having either civil unions or marriage, as opposed to the current state of affairs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They problem is that gay couples don't want their love to be viewed as inferior than that of a straight couple.

Imagine that! What's wrong with those people!?

[3irty1]

They problem is that gay couples don't want their love to be viewed as inferior than that of a straight couple.

Imagine that! What's wrong with those people!?

Nothing its very understandable.

Its also understandable how a lot of straight American couples don't agree that two gay people can share the same bond in the ways that they do.

[swede]

"Said child is being exposed to something not the norm and being forced to deal with it at far too early of an age."

I totally agree. We should also ban interfaith marriage as well. Not the norm. And, not black/white marriage either...not the norm.
:roll:


As for children being exposed to ridicule...all children get teased. That is part of being a child. If they aren't teasing you because you have two dads, they'll find another...the clothes you wear, your looks, your last name, etc.

Part of growing up is learning to deal with teasing...at least it was before all you conservative PC types started trying to make wimps outta children.

There was a kid in my kid's school being raised by a lesbian couple and I gotta tell you, not only was that a very well adjusted child, the rest of the kids really didn't give a flying f*ck about it. And both of the parents helped with the PTA, activities and all that kind of stuff. They did a far better job with their kid than the parents of the kid who thought it was ok to choke another child with a jump rope when she didn't get her way...

My wonderful neighbors are a lesbian couple raising four beautiful kids. Two are grown adults from a previous traditional marriage. One is a sperm donor a/i child, and the littlest is adopted from another country.

Dealing with real people is a great therapy for overcoming prejudice.

Anyway, I'm a conservative who happens to be religious--not a religious conservative. I have zero problems with civil union legislation and the only problem I have with gay marriage is that it leaves me feeling like Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof; things are moving a little too fast for this old man.

[bobblehead]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right, that is why I said I am for civil unions that come with all the rights of a married couple in my first post. They deserve that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the only problem I have with gay marriage is that it leaves me feeling like Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof; things are moving a little too fast for this old man.

:lol: I agree. I would like to allow people to hang-on to their religious/cultural ideas about "marriage." If we would limit the government to JUST performing civil unions, that could happen. Let churches do marriages. I think everybody would be happy. If the Unitarians want to marry gays, fine. Maybe someday the Lutherans will marry gays too, if and when they are ready.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its also understandable how a lot of straight American couples don't agree that two gay people can share the same bond in the ways that they do.

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

[bobblehead]

Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you)

What in the world did you mean by that statement?




PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

When you say there are more couples looking to adopt than kids.......do you mean infants? I can't believe you could possibly mean all minor children.

yes, I meant infants, in the case of kids who have passed the stage of having a chance at infant adoption their are plenty....and most gay couples aren't interested in them either.

As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

[bobblehead]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

Actually most gay couples have to go over seas to adopt, so your last argument doesn't really hold any water. Adopting a white USA born infant in this country is nearly impossible for an upstanding white couple.

Actually, that WAS my point. I am saying why put kids in a nontraditional situation when plenty of loving traditional situations are available. And as far as international adoption goes (gay or straight) it usually is nothing more than buying a baby. I have been trying for years to figure out how a celebrity can adopt a baby internationally(stories where the greatful parent was happy for thier child's opportunity) when the common person can't adopt any baby who has a living parent.

[3irty1]

Its also understandable how a lot of straight American couples don't agree that two gay people can share the same bond in the ways that they do.

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion. Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.

Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples. I imagine the lifestyle of being openly gay is full of much worse experiences seeing as how much of society is not completely accepting. I don't see how anyone is being treated unfairly the way things are now nor do I see it as a huge priority to make being gay any more public than it already is.

In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.

[Deputy Nutz]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

Actually most gay couples have to go over seas to adopt, so your last argument doesn't really hold any water. Adopting a white USA born infant in this country is nearly impossible for an upstanding white couple.

Actually, that WAS my point. I am saying why put kids in a nontraditional situation when plenty of loving traditional situations are available. And as far as international adoption goes (gay or straight) it usually is nothing more than buying a baby. I have been trying for years to figure out how a celebrity can adopt a baby internationally(stories where the greatful parent was happy for thier child's opportunity) when the common person can't adopt any baby who has a living parent.

Most of these children from overseas are orphans. It is actually a really shitty why to have to get a kid, besides their is a high number of children coming over that have attatchment disorders, Autism, and many other mental and emotional disorders. Outside of that I really don't understand the above post.

I have several gay couple friends that have adopted children, I also have an uncle that is married to a black woman, and talk about nontraditional(never heard of that before), they have been on the foster to adopt list for the past 5 years for a young child. They are looked upon as the plague from our lovely government institution that handles the adoption process. I am sorry, I stopped buying the nontraditional verse the traditional situations, and if I wanted to raise a child the last thing I would worry about is what others consider traditional. I am hopefully providing for my child and giving them a wonderful life, regardless of it being considered a traditional upbringing.

I am a stay at home father with my kids, and sure I know of some people mostly other men that think I have lost my traditional value system, and have little respect for what I do. Thats too bad I like most of those people, but I am not going to change what I do because someone thinks or lacks respect for my maleness. You don't like it, or if other don't like it, tough shit, my kids are better for it, and I am sure that is exactly how two gay loving parents feel about it as well.

[SkinBasket]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

[Zool]

Im sending them to your house to raise your children metro.

[hoosier]

[As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

This is every bit as simplistic and insulting as if I were to say that Republicans don't give a damn about the poor because they advocate reduction of social services. You say that you want dialogue and civility but then you come up with these silly caricatures of "liberals" and of how they are supposedly shaping our society--what exactly are you hoping to accomplish if not to antagonize?

[SkinBasket]

Im sending them to your house to raise your children metro.

That would actually be ideal. Can I get an extra order of lesbians? I've always gotten on better with the lesbos than the queers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

[Partial]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think tyrone, that at some point your disdain for conservatives will end and you will stop reading into peoples words (at least mine), I hope so, because I find you somewhat intelligent and capable of making a point. You make a good one here, albeit in a roundabout way. I am not a "hate filled monger" or any of the other things conservatives are labeled.

I have no disdain for conservatives. I have disdain for stupid people and most republicans. Conservative is a compliment.

I never said or implied you were a hate monger.

The responsibility in communication lies with the sender, not the receiver. IF you wish me and others not to read into what you write, then perhaps take some time to review what you have written.

I only addressed what you wrote...that children would be subject to undue teasing. YOu like to make statements that you feel are truth or factual, yet you have no support or basis for..you rely solely on your opinion or anecdotal evidence...that seems "liberal"..a feeling.

I merely noted that if the criteria is undue teasing...then children of mixed religions or ethinicities are apt to fact that as well. Then, following your logic then we should be against that as well...not against them as it relates to law or their personal happiness..but, based on the effect it will have on children.

I for one, don't want my decisions or country ruled by the impact on children.

[LL2]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

:lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?

I think we just found Woody's doppelganger.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.
It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion.
Your statement that "it is equal now" is very strange. You are aware that WI prohibts gay couples from forming legally-recognized lifetime partnerships? I assume you know about the constitutional amendment that passed.

Maybe you can clarify. Are you suggesting that gays have equal treatment because they are afforded the opportunity to not be gay, to pursue heterosexual marriage just like everybody else?


Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.
Again, I'm not advocating that the state sanction gay marriage, I'd prefer that the state just offer only civil unions to everyone. Its obvious that "marriage" is a religious question, people are not of one mind.
But explain to me how giving homosexual couples legal rights forces you to believe they are just as good as straight couples?


Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples.
If the state annulled your marraige, and said you could not have the legal benefits of marrying again, I think you might not be so devil-may-care.


In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.
It's both, but I agree with you to a degree. For our current era, civil unions do the job, pressing for marriage is a mistake.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

Yaah, baby

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bonobo_female_sex.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

Well, we can clearly see how you react to science and being proven wrong.

Evolution isn't a one to one thing...it is by a species. If it serves the species to have more males there to protect the species...then it serves and evolutionary purpose.

BTW, I wouldn't be basing your argument what it takes to create a baby. Science has established that in the future, men wont' be necessary. I don't think you wanna base the need for men strictly on reproduction.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/214040/could_men_no_longer_be_needed_in_reproduction.html

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/04/22/53569.html

"Japanese researchers have demonstrated for the first time how mammals can reproduce without a male, leading to the birth of apparently healthy baby mice by mixing two sets of female genes inside an egg."

[MJZiggy]

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

[/quote]

Two men, a good time, one turkey baster and a surrogate. Boom. Same as for a hetero couple I know. Now you promised to listen. I'm holding you to that...

[3irty1]

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.
It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion.
Your statement that "it is equal now" is very strange. You are aware that WI prohibts gay couples from forming legally-recognized lifetime partnerships? I assume you know about the constitutional amendment that passed.

Maybe you can clarify. Are you suggesting that gays have equal treatment because they are afforded the opportunity to not be gay, to pursue heterosexual marriage just like everybody else?


Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.
Again, I'm not advocating that the state sanction gay marriage, I'd prefer that the state just offer only civil unions to everyone. Its obvious that "marriage" is a religious question, people are not of one mind.
But explain to me how giving homosexual couples legal rights forces you to believe they are just as good as straight couples?


Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples.
If the state annulled your marraige, and said you could not have the legal benefits of marrying again, I think you might not be so devil-may-care.


In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.
It's both, but I agree with you to a degree. For our current era, civil unions do the job, pressing for marriage is a mistake.

I guess I misunderstood what you were all about because I agree that the correct action should be to fix civil unions to make them more convenient.

[Freak Out]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

[3irty1]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

[Freak Out]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.

[GrnBay007]

As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

When you say single parenthood is more common I'm curious how you are attributing that to welfare mothers rather than divorced couples.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on public assistance. I do believe public assistance goes by household income, so a man living in the home earning a low wage does not mean the woman, or they, that you refer to must kick the man out so the woman and child is able to survive. Who is this THEY you refer to?


Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home,

I've seen far more evidence that points to certain political parties working to provide assistance to single mothers to help them get off welfare rather than to keep them on welfare.....assistance with tuition, childcare and even in desperate cases housing. Now I don't mean housing as in welfare. I mean housing as in structured programs that allow single women to get on their feet, whether it be through learning a trade or working, give them financial guidance and help them save for their own residence...all while receiving free childcare while working to NOT be on welfare and better themselves.


keep from building an actual family

What's your definition of an actual family?
A single mother does not have an actual family because there is no man in the house??? omg...that's almost hilarious.

Here's a thought....maybe those that are so outraged by the women on welfare should take a moment to think about all the men that fathered those babies and are paying NO child support. There would be less spending on welfare if they were helping to support their children.

I would certainly never encourage anyone to be satisfied with being on welfare, however I would also never look down my nose at someone that needed it to get on their feet. I don't see how a certain political party encourages it either.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I guess I misunderstood what you were all about because I agree that the correct action should be to fix civil unions to make them more convenient.

Not surprising. Mad has spread the word that I like it hard up the ass, as frequently and vigerously as possible. I will neither confirm nor deny these rumors. :lol:

I am strongly for gay people, but don't see either gay marriage or adoption as simple issues.

[bobblehead]

As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

When you say single parenthood is more common I'm curious how you are attributing that to welfare mothers rather than divorced couples.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on public assistance. I do believe public assistance goes by household income, so a man living in the home earning a low wage does not mean the woman, or they, that you refer to must kick the man out so the woman and child is able to survive. Who is this THEY you refer to?


Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home,

I've seen far more evidence that points to certain political parties working to provide assistance to single mothers to help them get off welfare rather than to keep them on welfare.....assistance with tuition, childcare and even in desperate cases housing. Now I don't mean housing as in welfare. I mean housing as in structured programs that allow single women to get on their feet, whether it be through learning a trade or working, give them financial guidance and help them save for their own residence...all while receiving free childcare while working to NOT be on welfare and better themselves.


keep from building an actual family

What's your definition of an actual family?
A single mother does not have an actual family because there is no man in the house??? omg...that's almost hilarious.

Here's a thought....maybe those that are so outraged by the women on welfare should take a moment to think about all the men that fathered those babies and are paying NO child support. There would be less spending on welfare if they were helping to support their children.

I would certainly never encourage anyone to be satisfied with being on welfare, however I would also never look down my nose at someone that needed it to get on their feet. I don't see how a certain political party encourages it either.

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it. I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

And finally, no, a single PARENT does not have a family in the traditional sense and welfare programs tend to discourage them from developing one. If the family recieving welfare is indeed a two parent family then whenever one gets a job, the public assistance tends to get cut dramatically, and furthermore if there is a male in the house who isn't working social workers expect them to, they don't expect single parents to, thus usually what happens is deadbeat dad leaves the house and mom is left to raise a kid on her own with little chance to improve her situation.

Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

edit: PS....some might argue that when I end up paying for said single mother I have the right to judge the behavior...others would say its still not my right, please send more money.

PSS...I had to go back to my original post...its not fair to quote me and cut off part of my sentence. I said build an actual family AND CAREER, and what I meant was a normal life that most of them desire and DESERVE. Now the way I originally wrote that you should have been VERY aware of what I meant and not thinking I was looking down my nose at them.

[GrnBay007]

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it.

There are programs out there to get single women off welfare. Bottom line will always be whether the individual wants to get off welfare. Insinuating a certain political party wants them to be on welfare is not fair imo.


I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

I never once pointed any fingers at you....I used general terms. :D

[bobblehead]

And i didn't insinuate it, I flat out said it. In 200x (can't remember exactly) the california DNC accidently left microphones on in a private meeting, they were discussing how to extend the recession until the elections so they could blame republicans. Now I'm not saying the republicans never do their own slimey things (valerie plume) but we are discussing this issue in the now.

[GrnBay007]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

[3irty1]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.




How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?
I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

This is a valid question. You're right, a similar argument for allowing gays to marry could be applied to cactophiles.

And my position of "let the churches decide", strictly applied, supports your point. There could be a religion that honored the sacred bond between a man and his cactus.

So you are correct that it is reasonable and necessary for society to impose some limits on what a marriage can be. It can't be totally arbitrary. And if you think that marriage between two adults of the same sex would cause problems, then you are on firm ground to oppose it.

BTW, remind me again what those problems are. And no need to just be theoretical, there are countries all over the world with gay marriage now. What problems are cropping up that would justify preventing people from the pursuit of happiness?

I favor treating adults equally as much as possible. And I'm strongly for freedom. I see NO rationale for preventing any two consenting, unrelated adults from getting married. Except for bigotry, and that is far from a good reason.

I am for civil unions, not marriage, at this stage. But that is a practical judgement, I have no problem with marriage for gays in principle.

[3irty1]

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?
I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

This is a valid question. You're right, a similar argument for allowing gays to marry could be applied to cactophiles.

And my position of "let the churches decide", strictly applied, supports your point. There could be a religion that honored the sacred bond between a man and his cactus.

So you are correct that it is reasonable and necessary for society to impose some limits on what a marriage can be. It can't be totally arbitrary. And if you think that marriage between two adults of the same sex would cause problems, then you are on firm ground to oppose it.

BTW, remind me again what those problems are. And no need to just be theoretical, there are countries all over the world with gay marriage now. What problems are cropping up that would justify preventing people from the pursuit of happiness?

I favor treating adults equally as much as possible. And I'm strongly for freedom. I see NO rationale for preventing any two consenting, unrelated adults from getting married. Except for bigotry, and that is far from a good reason.

I am for civil unions, not marriage, at this stage. But that is a practical judgement, I have no problem with marriage for gays in principle.

From what I gather I am mostly with you on this issue. If being in a civil union is inconvenient then I'm all for improving the laws involved with that. As I already stated I think its ridiculous that being gay automatically makes you unfit to be a parent to an adopted child.

I do however like distinguishing between a civil union and a marriage even if only by name. As I said before this strikes me as a gay pride issue rather than a gay rights issue. I understand the desire to have their gay-love viewed as equal and just as legitimate as everyone elses but I don't think its a great idea to publicly endorse that lifestyle. Society is gay enough as it is, being more like Europe is the last thing I want.

[bobblehead]

Just a short response, I'm not outraged by mothers on welfare, I feel very sorry for them because for the most part social programs are NOT designed to help them get off of it.

There are programs out there to get single women off welfare. Bottom line will always be whether the individual wants to get off welfare. Insinuating a certain political party wants them to be on welfare is not fair imo.


I am not in any way looking down my nose at them, you are reading into what I think and thats not fair.

As far as the men who fathered those babies, I couldn't agree more. I often said one of the ONLY things I liked that Clinton did was his deadbeat dads act. Again, you assumed to know what I think and weren't even close in what you implied I think. Democrats have done such a good job of defining conservatives as "mean spirited" that its hard to even debate without being accused of such....some things go the same the other way too, such as my characterizing liberals of debating their feelings instead of logic.

I never once pointed any fingers at you....I used general terms. :D

while quoting me.

[bobblehead]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

Incidentally I probably would have great respect for you raising kids and having independence on your own (if I knew you)....I come from an identical family and my father was a deadbeat who never paid child support. My mother was a workaholic who still had time to help me with my homework...I'm very blessed.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

[MJZiggy]

Because the intent of social programs is not to leave people on them. Because when you have a great deal, you are still in a fragile position because at any time, you could lose everything as people found out on Black Monday. They are intended to be a safety net for you as well as the people who are currently on them. Because you haven't yet needed to collect an unemployment check doesn't mean you never will.

Besides if you want to put a morality spin on it, helping others in need is a morally good thing to do.

And you're just changing the subject because you really don't know what to do about the gays.

[bobblehead]

I think I have stated my position on what to do about gays pretty clearly and openly. If you think not, you probably didn't read my posts (not that you are required to)

Don't assume I haven't collected an unemployment check, I have.

And finally why not cover people in tough situations in zimbabwe, or thailand, or in other third world countries? Why not send those people who can't get employment or food a monthly check?

And I think most gays would resent the idea that we need to "do" anything about them.

[texaspackerbacker]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

6 pages now.

Truth is, there are gays, and there are gays. Some, the large majority, I suspect, are just like normal people in that they just want to keep a low profile and practice their ......... chosen behavior. THOSE gays should be left alone. They aren't hurting anybody; They aren't trying to change the country to acceptance of their way. They are what they are and do what they do. And they don't require a pretense of normality. I've met people like that; Probably we all have. What do you do with them? Nothing! Just live and let live.

Then there are the "flaming fags"--the kind you see out in the streets putting their gayness on display and protesting to mainstream their chosen lifestyle. What do you do with those? They should be treated equally--equally with all the other God damned rabble rousers out their in the streets trying to screw up the American way of life. Freedom to Assemble, etc. precludes locking them up, however, Freedom of Speech and Assembly, etc. also allows the good normal people to assemble and bait and instigate and berate them any way we damn well please--short of physical violence, of course.

[MJZiggy]

And finally why not cover people in tough situations in zimbabwe, or thailand, or in other third world countries? Why not send those people who can't get employment or food a monthly check?

And I think most gays would resent the idea that we need to "do" anything about them.

USAID.


(and I was just teasing about the gays.)

[bobblehead]

what is USAID?? I can't respond to anything I don't follow.

[MJZiggy]

http://www.usaid.gov/

United States Agency for International Development. Active in places like Zimbabwe, and a TON of 3rd world and post conflict countries around the world. Just celebrated the electrification of a town in Sudan, did a lot of econ. dev. in Iraq (still going on) and Afghanistan and is also active in Central and South America.

[bobblehead]

but there are still BILLIONS of people around the world struggling, couldn't we just raise taxes so they can ALL have a check?

PS, wouldn't it be better than doing that silly infrastructure building?? I mean a check they can spend NOW.

[MJZiggy]

They're not just building infrastructure. It's economic development including microloans, trade development, investment, and agriculture. There's no need to give them all a check. They have governments too. Even though many of their governments do not afford them the freedom and choices that you and I see. Still, we do what we can.

[GrnBay007]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

For the record, I absolutely do NOT support people getting on and staying on welfare for a lifetime. I do believe in programs that will work to get individuals off welfare. Different areas of assistance are all lumped in to the term welfare. I am very against a physically able person sitting on welfare collecting a monthly check (for spending), housing assistance, food stamps and full medical care (better than many working middle class get) and is able to do this for years without doing anything to better themselves or work toward getting off welfare. That's wrong. I am not against the working poor receiving some assistance because their low paying jobs just don't make ends meet. Lets face it, not all people have the capabilities to get an education beyond H.S. and unless they are skilled labor they may not have the opportunity to earn a wage to support a family. But they do work and are often times very ashamed to receive assistance because of the stigma our society gives welfare recipients. In order to fix this...come up with strict guidelines for those on welfare that don't have any intention or incentive to work and offer them programs and give them deadlines. It would take a lot of close monitoring and additional staff at Human Services...and extra spending in that area is often frowned upon. Those workers are often times just doing the basics and are way understaffed. So where do you spend the money? Handing out the monthly checks or coming up with strict programs/deadlines and forking out the money to enforce it by hiring additional staff?


I come from an identical family and my father was a deadbeat who never paid child support.
No, it's not identical. My ex has never missed a child support payment and is very involved in the life of his children. It's not a lot monthly and close to 1/2 of it goes into an account for the kids for college. I've never gone back to court to get the CS raised. We are doing fine so there is no reason for it and whether it's the right or wrong way to look at it, why change something when it's working. The relationship they have with their father is more important to me then any monthly check. I feel I'm fortunate though because even without that check I can make it and would still find a way to get my kids to college. There are many single women, whether it be through divorce or other circumstances, that are not as fortunate.

[bobblehead]

AND...I didn't mean to imply your ex was a deadbeat. I meant my family was a single mom with kids that worked hard and was independent...AND my dad was a deadbeat, sorry for the confusion. (I read it one way in my mind with inflections and assume everyone sees my thoughts, my bad)

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it. You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids. People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.

On to ziggy....but they are hungry and their gov'ts aren't doing much, can't we just cut them a check? That is what we do here, we just give them money, we don't build infrastructure in the inner city, we don't create jobs for them, we give them enough to eat and live, shouldn't the poor in 3rd world countries be afforded the same thing.....I would think its less their fault for being in that situation than it is people born in america, I mean, how can you be so mean spirited towards them....sorry, couldn't resist, i get called heartless all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.




How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

I knew you people wouldn't understand our love. But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?

I've refined my position. Love between a man and a saguaro is fine, but love between a man and a barrel cactus is just unholy.

Though, i will allow civil unions between you and all cacti..but marriage only applies to saguaros.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

[GrnBay007]

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it.
Right. But when these jobs are created what do they pay per hour? Even a single person with no family has a hard time making ends meet in their own housing on minimum wage. What is it now, $7.25?



You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids.

And that's called "breaking the cycle". It has to start somewhere. Give them the opportunity to get education/training and give them a fair/reasonable deadline. Make it or break it. You would be amazed at the amount of young adults out there that have come from the welfare families that have never been encouraged to make it on their own without welfare or criminal acts to survive. Some of them...not all, will fight like hell if they see someone finally supporting them and giving them encouragement. I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if I hadn't seen it first hand. People CAN change.....even it certain beliefs and ways of living are instilled in them as children.


People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

I'm all for them working harder...but we all have to realize there are people out there that are simply not ABLE to further their education. The job at Walmart or Target may be all they are able to do.


Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.


What I said was give them the tools they need for a determined amount of time and then make it or break it. Choosing which job is good enough will not be an option....take what you are able to get. But, if they are working and the only thing they are able to do is something working minimum wage and can't make ends meet, is it so bad they receive fuel assistance or something to that affect in terms of assistance? And as far as if someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" goes and that no inherrant right to a family exists... I would say I don't think we should judge those who are poor and have a family...I don't believe it's my right to determine if a low income couple should or should not have children. The one area I have no tolerance for is the woman/family that continue to have children and receive benefits when they've had children removed from the household due to negligence or abuse. The State would never approve, but I would support mandatory birth control/sterilization in those cases.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

I didn't say you did, just pointing out what Tex would say...and clearly it is important in our country....look at how our pols act.

Regardless, our country was founded as a beacon on hill to show the world how great "it" could be. Hard to do that when we have people suffering. Hard to export democracy and the "american way" if it has people suffering.

[bobblehead]

As far as plans to get them off welfare, I believe that the only such plan is economic developement..you know, keep unemployment very low so employers need employees thus giving these people jobs. The others simply don't cut it.
Right. But when these jobs are created what do they pay per hour? Even a single person with no family has a hard time making ends meet in their own housing on minimum wage. What is it now, $7.25?



You can have as many programs to educate someone and make them employable as you want, but most of those things have to be instilled in them as kids.

And that's called "breaking the cycle". It has to start somewhere. Give them the opportunity to get education/training and give them a fair/reasonable deadline. Make it or break it. You would be amazed at the amount of young adults out there that have come from the welfare families that have never been encouraged to make it on their own without welfare or criminal acts to survive. Some of them...not all, will fight like hell if they see someone finally supporting them and giving them encouragement. I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if I hadn't seen it first hand. People CAN change.....even it certain beliefs and ways of living are instilled in them as children.


People who wish to have better than a job at walmart or target will work harder, go back to school, ect....those that don't, there is nothing you can do to make them (and you shouldn't, its their choice to pursue happiness any way they want).

I'm all for them working harder...but we all have to realize there are people out there that are simply not ABLE to further their education. The job at Walmart or Target may be all they are able to do.


Basically my point is the only thing to help people in bad situations is give them a job or give them money. To let them choose what job is good enough and which isn't when they are hungry seems kinda weird to me. If someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" I would argue that no inherrant RIGHT to a family exists. I disagree that there are other people in your situation not as fortunate....motivated seems more applicable.


What I said was give them the tools they need for a determined amount of time and then make it or break it. Choosing which job is good enough will not be an option....take what you are able to get. But, if they are working and the only thing they are able to do is something working minimum wage and can't make ends meet, is it so bad they receive fuel assistance or something to that affect in terms of assistance? And as far as if someone isn't capable of "earning a wage to support a family" goes and that no inherrant right to a family exists... I would say I don't think we should judge those who are poor and have a family...I don't believe it's my right to determine if a low income couple should or should not have children. The one area I have no tolerance for is the woman/family that continue to have children and receive benefits when they've had children removed from the household due to negligence or abuse. The State would never approve, but I would support mandatory birth control/sterilization in those cases.

1) so what should minimum wage be $20? it is what the market of supply (jobs) and demand (employees) determines. If EVERYONE was overqualified to do such jobs what then? I know this is cruel, but as long as ditches need to be dug, the world needs ditch diggers. Not everyone gets a great job, only those that strive for it the hardest. I have tried to come up with an economic model where everyone can make a ton of money, but there ain't one.

2) I agree, there are programs to help them "break the cycle" and some people take advantage of them. As a matter of fact there are tons of said programs...public school being the biggest. What you are talking about is a second chance after childhood. Its good in principle, but has never proven effective, the only thing effective to date is sink or swim (and some sink :( Also, should everyone who works for minimum wage get a chance at free training to improve?? And again, if so, who works the lower end jobs? The best programs to improve your life are privately run (the warren buffet foundation comes to mind) (I shudder to say it, but church organizations also do a lot to help people)

3) now you are treading into my territory. I don't judge poor families who work hard and make it, but have less than some. I do judge people who have a family, can't afford it, and run to the gov't for money, then have 2 more kids. Now as far as the birth control thing goes, how about something like this (I'm hypothetical and stirring debate, don't hate me). How about the minute a woman has to take public assistance she gets the birth control implant in her arm and when she picks up her check every month it has to be checked/maintained. If at a later date she pays back the money she can have it removed and have more kids. If she can identify the father (be they family or not) who isn't supporting his kids he is forceably given a visectomy. If he pays back the money she got from the gov't he can get it reversed.

One thing I will say, despite this topic, I don't feel welfare/support programs are too bad, they aren't what are bankrupting our gov't. The problem is societal wide programs (SS and medicare) that politicians collect the money for, but instead of saving it for future generations they spend it on pet projects, inefficient gov't spending, ect.

[bobblehead]

I would now like to change the direction or our debate, if I may, and ask why you think social programs are moral? Why is it ok for someone in a tough situation to get MY tax dollars to help them along?? Please don't start down the mean spirited road, this is a legitimate question and I want to debate it, remember, I don't always believe my own arguements, sometimes I'm merely playing devils advocate.

So, to anyone who cares to respond.

Why are social programs moral when they amount to taking from people who have it (earned or not) and giving it to those who don't.

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

I have never used the christian thing in an arguement...I am an agnostic (meaning I have no clue, and no arguement either way can convince me since humans are not wired in a way to understand such things).

As a matter of fact, I have argued in the past against religion in gov't, because, I don't want a territory where muslims make up the majority (there is some town in NJ i believe) to pass a law saying women can't expose skin, or women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned....yep, I'm all for leaving religion out of govn't.

I didn't say you did, just pointing out what Tex would say...and clearly it is important in our country....look at how our pols act.

Regardless, our country was founded as a beacon on hill to show the world how great "it" could be. Hard to do that when we have people suffering. Hard to export democracy and the "american way" if it has people suffering.

That is one of the better arguements I have heard: setting an example for the world. I like it, not enough to buy into it fully, but I do like it. I still think we prop up our own poor who have far more opportunity than any poor person in a third world country. I still believe wholeheartedly that job creation, growth and private sector investment does far more to help a poor person than any gov't program.

The way you typed that "Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one" that it reads like you are saying I made that claim as well, but I see where you are coming from. Tex likes to claim, we like to claim.

[MJZiggy]

1) so what should minimum wage be $20? it is what the market of supply (jobs) and demand (employees) determines. If EVERYONE was overqualified to do such jobs what then? I know this is cruel, but as long as ditches need to be dug, the world needs ditch diggers. Not everyone gets a great job, only those that strive for it the hardest. I have tried to come up with an economic model where everyone can make a ton of money, but there ain't one.

2) I agree, there are programs to help them "break the cycle" and some people take advantage of them. As a matter of fact there are tons of said programs...public school being the biggest. What you are talking about is a second chance after childhood. Its good in principle, but has never proven effective, the only thing effective to date is sink or swim (and some sink :( Also, should everyone who works for minimum wage get a chance at free training to improve?? And again, if so, who works the lower end jobs? The best programs to improve your life are privately run (the warren buffet foundation comes to mind) (I shudder to say it, but church organizations also do a lot to help people)

3) now you are treading into my territory. I don't judge poor families who work hard and make it, but have less than some. I do judge people who have a family, can't afford it, and run to the gov't for money, then have 2 more kids. Now as far as the birth control thing goes, how about something like this (I'm hypothetical and stirring debate, don't hate me). How about the minute a woman has to take public assistance she gets the birth control implant in her arm and when she picks up her check every month it has to be checked/maintained. If at a later date she pays back the money she can have it removed and have more kids. If she can identify the father (be they family or not) who isn't supporting his kids he is forceably given a visectomy. If he pays back the money she got from the gov't he can get it reversed.

One thing I will say, despite this topic, I don't feel welfare/support programs are too bad, they aren't what are bankrupting our gov't. The problem is societal wide programs (SS and medicare) that politicians collect the money for, but instead of saving it for future generations they spend it on pet projects, inefficient gov't spending, ect.

First, you have to pay for those surgeries and b/c, secondly, you can't simply reverse a vasectomy and expect presurgical fertility.

Maybe instead of going after the society-wide programs, we should think about going after the idiots for misappropriating the funds.

[bobblehead]

Paying for those surgeries and birth control is far cheaper than paying for another child. (like 400 for a visectomy, not sure on the implant women get). And they lost some fertility... :cry: shoulda thought of that before they let their first child to fend for itself.

And I agree about going after the idiots who misappropriate funds. I think most welfare/assistance programs are something we can afford, problem is once gov't gets involved waste/inefficiency ect gets started. Pretty soon I have to read an article in the LV review journal about a poor lady who can't get by on her check and foodstamps. Meanwhile the picture is of a 300lb lady with a baby in the cart, and a young child next to her. In the cart is a big bag of Kingsford, and 3 boxes of cereal. She is holding a package of steak in her free hand....I mean c'mon, are you kidding me? Growing up I had eggs and toast every morning, I thought it was cuz mom loved me, now she tells me cereal is way more expensive than eggs and toast.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, i would point to you and especially Tex who like to claim this country is a Christian one..and therefore as Christians Jesus demanded you assist the poor.

Stupid argument. As a Christian, I give money, but I decide where the money is going to. Besides tithing, I usually choose those organizations that have proven to be the most efficient with the money I give. The government isn't the most efficient. In fact, wanting the government to stay out of the entitlement business (except for those that truly can't help themselves) isn't a Christian position. Many Christians would probably be for this. I think it's a matter of keeping the government small (which was the original intent when this country was created) and letting people have the freedom to choose what they want to do with their money. As a Christian I can still choose to give away a good portion of my money (and I do), but it's not forced on others who may feel differently.

[bobblehead]

I'd like to take this moment to pimp the smile train. It is a charity that goes to kids in 3rd world nations for surgery to fix cleft mouths(lips). the overhead is minimal and most money goes right to these kids, and it is really a cheap way to change a childs outlook on life....even better than giving a welfare mom a check.

[GrnBay007]

And I agree about going after the idiots who misappropriate funds. I think most welfare/assistance programs are something we can afford, problem is once gov't gets involved waste/inefficiency ect gets started.

This isn't unusual at all in our country and the business world...too often the policies are written at the top and too little input is allowed from the people that are hands on and have a better idea what the hell is going on!! Happens ALL the time at the State level.

[HarveyWallbangers]

the only problem I have with gay marriage is that it leaves me feeling like Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof; things are moving a little too fast for this old man.

:lol: I agree. I would like to allow people to hang-on to their religious/cultural ideas about "marriage." If we would limit the government to JUST performing civil unions, that could happen. Let churches do marriages. I think everybody would be happy. If the Unitarians want to marry gays, fine. Maybe someday the Lutherans will marry gays too, if and when they are ready.

Here's how my Conservative mind works, Harlan. Although I believe homosexuality is a sin, I know that not everyone feels the way I do (or necessarily should). I also go by the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra. I don't look to ostracize homosexuals. Now, I think marriage is a religious ceremony and should remain a union between one man and one woman, but I think there can be a good compromise (civil unions). Otherwise, I generally do not care what the hell somebody wants to do in their own house (only if it directly affects me). Nutz said that he and his wife don't have a religious marriage. To me, this should fall under a civil union also. It's not so much the homosexuality that clouds things for me as it is the fact that marriage, in this country, has been a sacred religious institution (between one man and one woman). I know you think this is antiquated, but I don't understand the need to change it. Again, for me, civil unions seem to be a good compromise.

And no, I don't think having two unions (marriage unions and civil unions) ostracizes homosexuals--in case you were wondering.

Like Swede said, it's hard when you have friends that are gay. For me, it was even a couple of long-time friends who came out years later, but I have to stay true to myself and my beliefs.

[BallHawk]

Well-said, Harv. Spot on.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The recent constitutional amendment in WI banned both marriage and civil unions.

Somebody from Oshkosh recently challenged the amendment in court, saying that it unfairly forced voters to cast one vote on two different issues. I think the discussions that we have had shows pretty clearly that many people think differently about marriage & civil unions.

The guy's challenge lost. But it is being appealed to a higher court.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here is the story: http://www.madison.com/tct/news/288960

I think the WI constitutional referendum banning both gay marriage and civil unions was bogus. The issues should be considered separately.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally I think a lot of democrats voted against gay marriage....does that make them conservative?

[PackFan#1]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Incidentally I think a lot of democrats voted against gay marriage....does that make them conservative?

of course it is a point in the conservative column for them.

You seem to think that people are all one thing or another. Its no wonder that the thought of a majority of the South switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has thrown you into such a tizzy. No way for you to think about it in your system of hard boxes.

[bobblehead]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally I think a lot of democrats voted against gay marriage....does that make them conservative?

of course it is a point in the conservative column for them.

You seem to think that people are all one thing or another. Its no wonder that the thought of a majority of the South switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has thrown you into such a tizzy. No way for you to think about it in your system of hard boxes.

OK, bad example on my part, I was still irked by the other thread. Against Gay marriage is indeed a socially conservative stance. Rascism still isn't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Bobble,

it is this type of thinking that makes me sick.

Responsibility? Really? So, only those who are going to be achievers should mate?

Having 2 kids isn't being irresponsible.

BTW, your argument is self defeating. Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

[bobblehead]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Bobble,

it is this type of thinking that makes me sick.

Responsibility? Really? So, only those who are going to be achievers should mate?

Having 2 kids isn't being irresponsible.

BTW, your argument is self defeating. Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

No, its not self defeating, I'm saying that you shouldn't have children til you are ready, financially and emotionally. If you knock up your girlfriend in highschool, it is irresponsible, and if you have kids you can't support, it also is irresponsible.

I never said that only achievers should mate, I am saying don't have kids you can't pay for. If someone is content to be a retail worker/ditch digger whatever, its fine with me, I got no truck with that. Who is gonna do that work next is your question?? Well, whoevers kids are ok with doing it for a living, or those that are on their way up. I would think in most cases people who have hard lives would hope their kids WON'T follow the same path.

I would submit that if a family of 4 has both spouses working at walmart making the low end arguement average (34K) could indeed get by. Would they have 52" plasmas, probably not, but its not like they would starve. Do i think they are irresponsible to have 2 kids, only if they aren't willing make the sacrifices necessary to pay for them.

You say that this thinking makes you sick, well without being too emotional about it, the thinking that anyone should have as many kids as they want and if they can't pay for it we will merely tax the produces and hand it over makes me sick. People who look at my situation and declare me lucky without know the sacrifices I made along the way make me sick. As a very wealthy person I met once said "I'm just a guy who worked 20 hours a day and got lucky"

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, bad example on my part, I was still irked by the other thread. Against Gay marriage is indeed a socially conservative stance. Rascism still isn't.

I agree. But people of a conservative mindset were more likely to react against the Civil Rights Movement, since by definition they are tempermentally resistent to radical change.

I don't think racists are more likely to be conservative now that things have become more settled.

[texaspackerbacker]

How is it NOT racist to begin with the assumption that blacks aren't capable of competing and NEED liberal crap--affirmative action, social programs, welfare, etc.--everything libs stand for?

How is it NOT racist to create a dependent class that can be counted on to vote Dem/lib?

[PackFan#1]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.


Wtf? Aren't you supposed to be a financial guru? You put more weight on Wal-mart's internal report than an expert independent report? That's the equivalent of an investor discarding a competent cpa firm's audited financial report on a company for that company's own internal report.

Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

Here's a quote: "According to the National Coalition for the Homeless...in 1998 it took on average nationalwide, an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment, and the Preamble Center for Public Policy estimates that the odds against a typical welfare recipient's landing a job at such a "living wage:" are about 97 to 1."

Another quote: "The influx of a million former welfare recipients into the low-wage labor market could depress wages by as much as 11.9 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

My second point, 2 bucks raise in 4 yrs is nothing when you take inflation into consideration. I personally worked at walmart after my freshman yr in college. They give you like 25 cents raise every 6 months if you ace their evaluation.

[bobblehead]

congratulations, I finally dragged you into posting something of substance. I am shocked. Yes, since walmart actually has access to their books, I put more faith on there numbers. Since walmart has worked hard to keep prices down for americans of all stripes, I believe them. Since "independant experts" are speculating from the outside, I trust walmarts numbers more. Nowhere did it say that an audit concluded those numbers.

I never said it would be easy to get by on 17k. I said you have to sacrifice and adjust. And if you don't like it you might even work to better your situation. I'm not sure what the entire point was of your post other than it sucks to be poor...well, we agree.

Barbara who? Oh you mean the co-chair of this organization:
===========================================

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a democratic socialist/social democratic organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, a federation of socialist, social democratic, democratic socialist and labor parties and organizations.

DSA was formed in 1982 by a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the largest remnant of the defunct Socialist Party of America led by Michael Harrington, and the New American Movement, a coalition of writers and intellectuals with roots in both the New Left movements of the 1960s and the more traditional parties of the Old Left. Two other Socialist Party of America factions went on to form Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.
=========================================
Dude if you wanna live in a socialist society go right ahead. And Ms. Erehnreich had a degree in biology, obviously I take her economic views much more seriously then people like.....Keynes...Friedman....ect.

If you wanna debate on the best way to get the poor people to a better situation I'm all for it, but if your only point is that it sucks to be poor, you really still aren't proving much....although you are finally trying and I respect that.

[PackFan#1]

Bobblehead, you are a bum to argue with. You like to change your meanings and you can't seem to comprehend what you read.

Nowhere did I quote economics data that are composed by said author. Read again. Ehrenreich got her data from 1. National Coalition for the Homeless. 2. Preamble Center for Public Policy. 3. Economic Policy Institute.

You trust walmart's numbers. I guess you also trust Enron's numbers too.

And wtf? I'm arguing that it sucks to be poor? Do you even understand the meaning of NOT GETTING BY? Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

[mraynrand]

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

You're on the right track. Now take the next step. If you're only making 17K, you don't live alone. For the first 6 years out of college, I averaged under 16K a year. I lived in a house with 4-5 other people, and I actually saved money. I was able to afford a small car and a bike. I could have lived that way indefinitely. But, like a lot of people in their first job, or in low paying job, I was looking for a better job, and increasing my skills. My resume from entry level type jobs, and the recommendations from bosses got me better jobs and better opportunities. Then of course, I got married, etc. etc.

Simple rules for avoiding poverty:
1. Attend High School, learn something, Graduate.
2. Don’t commit Crimes (stay out of trouble).
3. Take Any Job.
4. Don’t Have kids Before You’re Married; Don’t Get Married Until You’re At Least 21.
follow these simple rules and you have a 2-5% chance of living in poverty. But if you think you're going to make a 'living wage,' live independently, and be able to support any kind of family working a 34 hour a week entry level job at Wal-Mart, you're deluded. Look at the people working Wal-Mart. Most folks do not fit this description - most are kids, seniors, spouses supplementing other family income (and know a lot of folks like this). Why is it that so many people think people stay in the same class their entire life. How many 40-50 year olds do you guys know who are in the same job, earning the same wages or salaries that they earned when they were 18?

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, you are a bum to argue with. You like to change your meanings and you can't seem to comprehend what you read.


We are aguing?? You have made one post of substance(sort of) and otherwise called us all rascists and compared people to derek vinyard and you call that arguing?? Now you are back to resorting to insults. Thats not called arguing. Please point out where I change my meanings and I will be happy to clarify.





Nowhere did I quote economics data that are composed by said author. Read again. Ehrenreich got her data from 1. National Coalition for the Homeless. 2. Preamble Center for Public Policy. 3. Economic Policy Institute.

You trust walmart's numbers. I guess you also trust Enron's numbers too.

And wtf? I'm arguing that it sucks to be poor? Do you even understand the meaning of NOT GETTING BY? Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

No, you told me to go read her book...see below. You could have left her out entirely and just quoted the data. According to the data it sucks to be poor, I concur.

Your arguement amounts to, a welfare worker can't walk into a job 80% higher than minimum wage. Probably true, but such a worker can get into an entry position and in mere months move close to that wage. Your next point is that an influx of welfare people might depress wages by as much as 11.9%. Yep, which is why I keep saying we need to strain the job market (unemployment around 2%), other than that, what is your point, we should let people sit on welfare indefinately and raise taxes by 11.9% to pay for them??

And I reject your bottom line. I got by on just such a wage my first 2 years outta college. I got by on less with roommates while in college with minimal financial aid. I didn't enjoy it much. I didn't have a TV that first year. I spent a lot of free time reading and taking long walks. But I never went hungry, and I always had a roof over my head. My AC wasn't on much that first Las Vegas summer either, that sucked.

Ok, now that we have agreed it sucks to be poor, I'm all for debating a solution. Social programs don't solve said problem, they create a block of enabled voters. Transfer of wealth hurts the economy by taking money from the producers and handing it over to non producers thus inhibiting creation/advancement. When you inhibit advancement you hurt everyone. When you take the money from the producers, you cost jobs.

Feel free to debate any point you wish, but to "challenge" me to quit my job and work at walmart as thought that challenge is sane muchless proves anything is just more BS. How about this. I will do just that, and if I "get by" you cover my lost earnings, fair enough? I'm not a millionaire, and I don't work as hard as I did a few years ago, it will only cost you 60K if your wrong. If I'm wrong, it will cost me my job, 60k in the first year alone, and all my time accrued on the job. We can put the 60k in escrow with a contract drawn up and everything. Of course I'll also have to explain to my wife why I'm quitting and leaving her to go work at walmart, but again, you make a perfectly rational challenge here, so why not.








Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

[mraynrand]

Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

I dug ditches for three years. Lots of guys 'dig ditches' when they are young and then move on to other work. With a resume of responsible work, they can move up. A lot of retail workers are part time workers and supplement other income. Do part time workers or unskilled labor have to come from the children of other unskilled laborers, poor, etc. and vice versa, will the children of unskilled laborers become unskilled laborers? Not in America. Consistently, the highest achievers in American schools are the children of first generation immigrants - many of whom are unskilled laborers who are trying to learn the language. Children achieve if they come from solid two parent households. That's what should be promoted first and foremost. Even if you're a social liberal with a college education, who rejects the traditional family, you can still be pragmatic and see what works best.

[bobblehead]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

And I challenge Ted Kennedy to go get his care in Canada and see why nationalized healthcare is a bad idea.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart.



Wow, what a stupid thing to write. Challenge him to a duel at 50 paces, or something more masculine.

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

This is the kind of shit that makes me sick. How can you buy this BS?

There are plenty of people willing to employee people at a fair wage. You don't have to accept the job at Wal-Mart. Hell, if more people said no to their jobs and kept working hard looking for other opportunities, Wal-Mart would be forced to raise their wages.

Also, if you're unhappy with the wages they're paying, said person could pursue more education (very inexpesnively on the government after grants) and become educated to do something else.

[Partial]

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.



Two men, a good time, one turkey baster and a surrogate. Boom. Same as for a hetero couple I know. Now you promised to listen. I'm holding you to that...[/quote]

Thats not two men producing a baby. That is horrifying and very immoral and unnatural. Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

[Partial]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.

Bobble,

it is this type of thinking that makes me sick.

Responsibility? Really? So, only those who are going to be achievers should mate?

Having 2 kids isn't being irresponsible.

BTW, your argument is self defeating. Our county needs retail workers, ditch diggers, etc. If those people don't have children..who is going to do the work?

So do you think its irresponsible for the 18 year old girl who barely made it through high school, isn't married, doesn't earn 20 grand a year, etc is not irresponsible? Give me a break.

I completely agree with bobble that people need to be responsible and should only have as many kids as they can support. It's unfair to the child.

[Partial]

Hey bobblehead, why don't you quit your college-trained job today and go work at Wal-mart for the minimum. If you can support your family on that, then I'm all for obliterating social welfare.

If you know if you work hard at walmart, in 4 years they'll promote you from associate to assistant manager of your department and give you a $2 wage increase.

I can support my family on that, but I would have to change my lifestyle. The reason I don't is because I have worked hard and made sacrifices to have the job and situation I have now.

As usual, you offer no kind of arguement, simply come in, take a pot shot and think you scored points.

I actually have no clue what your point was other than to try and point out something about me that I'm not entirely sure what it is.

PS...
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. (incidentally what are people making 17k a year doing having 2 kids? responsibility PLEASE)

So you can't even frame your arguement honestly.


Wtf? Aren't you supposed to be a financial guru? You put more weight on Wal-mart's internal report than an expert independent report? That's the equivalent of an investor discarding a competent cpa firm's audited financial report on a company for that company's own internal report.

Go read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America."

Here's a quote: "According to the National Coalition for the Homeless...in 1998 it took on average nationalwide, an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment, and the Preamble Center for Public Policy estimates that the odds against a typical welfare recipient's landing a job at such a "living wage:" are about 97 to 1."

Another quote: "The influx of a million former welfare recipients into the low-wage labor market could depress wages by as much as 11.9 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.

Bottom line is you can't possibly get by independently working a low wage job at wal-mart (or another company with similar pay), even if you don't have kids. It would be difficult to get by on $17,114.24, too, if you take the costs of living into consideration.

My second point, 2 bucks raise in 4 yrs is nothing when you take inflation into consideration. I personally worked at walmart after my freshman yr in college. They give you like 25 cents raise every 6 months if you ace their evaluation.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Someone can easily live on 17k if they live within their means. You can find one bedroom apartments for like 250-300 bucks. You're not going to be living in beverly hills, but if you're on a beverly hills level you wouldn't be working in wal-mart.

You can live off 30 dollars of food a week. It's really not hard at all.

You don't need a phone. You don't need cable. You don't need to wear tommy hilfiger. Wear the clothes from good will for a quarter.

My god, don't be so daft. Anyone can live off just about any amount of money, it is a matter of adjusting their life style to do so.

[Scott Campbell]

But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?



Just 3 or 4?

[MJZiggy]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:

Not a chance in hell...

[mraynrand]

Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

"The words of the wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools"

[Scott Campbell]

Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

"The words of the wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools"


I'm sorry, I went to a public college. Any sentence with the word "ruleth" in it will have to be interpreted for me.

[mraynrand]

Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

"The words of the wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools"


I'm sorry, I went to a public college. Any sentence with the word "ruleth" in it will have to be interpreted for me.

Ask King James!

[Scott Campbell]

Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

"The words of the wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools"


I'm sorry, I went to a public college. Any sentence with the word "ruleth" in it will have to be interpreted for me.

Ask King James!


LeBron?

[MJZiggy]

Do any of you people go to church other than Harv?

"The words of the wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools"


I'm sorry, I went to a public college. Any sentence with the word "ruleth" in it will have to be interpreted for me.

Ask King James!

Isn't he the dude that had the Bible changed to suit his own purposes?

[Joemailman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[2] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Thus, the Authorized Version included the Apocrypha.

[hoosier]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

And I challenge Ted Kennedy to go get his care in Canada and see why nationalized healthcare is a bad idea.

You still have no idea what you're talking about on this one. First you claim that Rituxan isn't offered to lymphoma patients in England (false), now you insinuate that Canadian health care is inferior to US. Can you back that one up?

[bobblehead]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

And I challenge Ted Kennedy to go get his care in Canada and see why nationalized healthcare is a bad idea.

You still have no idea what you're talking about on this one. First you claim that Rituxan isn't offered to lymphoma patients in England (false), now you insinuate that Canadian health care is inferior to US. Can you back that one up?

I apologized for being mistaken on rituxan, I was outdated. I made a mistake by not keeping up on my arguement. I can't say that any other way. I even thanked you for pointing it out so I wouldn't go on making that mistake. In fairness, there was a time when that was true, you act as though I was completely making it up.

Can I back that up?? In what way, I merely want Ted Kennedy to go get in line for treatment like canadians do, same as pack wants me to go work at walmart.

Can I back it up....hmmm....well, when rich people get sick from all over the world they come to america for treatment. When other countries are training their doctors for their nationalized health care they send them here.

Can I back it up? Go ask medical professionals in Buffalo how many people come from canada to get a MRI because they are in a 7 month wait for it in canada.

Can I back it up? Most of the blockbuster/life altering drugs discovered in the world are discovered here....other systems get propped up by piggybacking our innovation.

If you want nationalized health care, I encourage you to go ahead and let the people who screwed up SS and nearly everything they touch to go ahead and manage your health. Me?? I'll be in thailand at a wonderful hospital full of american trained doctors getting my healthcare on time...can you afford to do that?

[Joemailman]

A lot of people think that the Canadian plan is completely funded by the government, which is not true. In Canada, 70% of health care funding is from the government, compared to 44% in the U.S. However, because the cost of health care here is double what it is in Canada, the U.S. government actually pays about 25% more per capita for health care than does the Canadian government. As some have said, "We're paying for universal health coverage. We're just not getting it." The main knock against the Canadian system is longer waits for non-emergency services, but some might consider that a good trade-off if it meant considerably lower health care costs.

[hoosier]

Again, I challege you to quit your current job and go work at walmart. You'll see why reforming welfare is ineffective.

And I challenge Ted Kennedy to go get his care in Canada and see why nationalized healthcare is a bad idea.

You still have no idea what you're talking about on this one. First you claim that Rituxan isn't offered to lymphoma patients in England (false), now you insinuate that Canadian health care is inferior to US. Can you back that one up?

I apologized for being mistaken on rituxan, I was outdated. I made a mistake by not keeping up on my arguement. I can't say that any other way. I even thanked you for pointing it out so I wouldn't go on making that mistake. In fairness, there was a time when that was true, you act as though I was completely making it up.

Can I back that up?? In what way, I merely want Ted Kennedy to go get in line for treatment like canadians do, same as pack wants me to go work at walmart.

Can I back it up....hmmm....well, when rich people get sick from all over the world they come to america for treatment. When other countries are training their doctors for their nationalized health care they send them here.

Can I back it up? Go ask medical professionals in Buffalo how many people come from canada to get a MRI because they are in a 7 month wait for it in canada.

Can I back it up? Most of the blockbuster/life altering drugs discovered in the world are discovered here....other systems get propped up by piggybacking our innovation.

If you want nationalized health care, I encourage you to go ahead and let the people who screwed up SS and nearly everything they touch to go ahead and manage your health. Me?? I'll be in thailand at a wonderful hospital full of american trained doctors getting my healthcare on time...can you afford to do that?

Your impressions of the Canadian health care system seem to be comprised of well-worn stereotypes about long waits. There are flaws with health care provider systems in both countries, and most objective assessments that I've read come to the conclusion that quality of service is roughly equal in the US and Canada--although Canadians have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US, and they pay a lot less for health care than we do. If you're as rich and famous as Ted Kennedy and can get seen by whoever you want whenever you want, chances are you'll pick a world-famous specialist at an East Coast university. But to conclude from that the US has an innate superiority over another countries health care system is naive.

[Freak Out]

A lot of people think that the Canadian plan is completely funded by the government, which is not true. In Canada, 70% of health care funding is from the government, compared to 44% in the U.S. However, because the cost of health care here is double what it is in Canada, the U.S. government actually pays about 25% more per capita for health care than does the Canadian government. As some have said, "We're paying for universal health coverage. We're just not getting it." The main knock against the Canadian system is longer waits for non-emergency services, but some might consider that a good trade-off if it meant considerably lower health care costs.

I have an aunt and three cousins that live in various regions of Canada and they have nothing but good things to say about the cost and the care. It's not like you cross the border and Theodoric of York is ready to take off your arm if you get a hangnail. Give the whole "Foreign" healthcare thing a rest. People before profit when it comes to the nations health.

[3irty1]

But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?



Just 3 or 4?

I feel like after 3 or 4 things would start to get exponentially bitchier. It could be cool for a few days though.

[Scott Campbell]

But can I at least marry three or four consenting adults at once?



Just 3 or 4?

I feel like after 3 or 4 things would start to get exponentially bitchier. It could be cool for a few days though.



Surprisingly, it actually gets easier. After 5 or 6 they just bitch to each other because they know I don't have time to listen.

[bobblehead]

Your impressions of the Canadian health care system seem to be comprised of well-worn stereotypes about long waits. There are flaws with health care provider systems in both countries, and most objective assessments that I've read come to the conclusion that quality of service is roughly equal in the US and Canada--although Canadians have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US, and they pay a lot less for health care than we do. If you're as rich and famous as Ted Kennedy and can get seen by whoever you want whenever you want, chances are you'll pick a world-famous specialist at an East Coast university. But to conclude from that the US has an innate superiority over another countries health care system is naive.

I agree that other countries have decent health care and that in some cases nationalized care isn't so bad. I also contend that most of the innovation and lifealtering type things are discovered in the american free market system. The higher life expectancy and infant mortality stuff can be attributed to a lot of things many of which are not medicine related at all.

I agree that when you finally get care in canada it is close to here, but the waiting is a killer for me. I also would say if we never allowed canada to use the drugs and other technical advances we have discovered/created here their care would not be the same. If I am correct canada has much higher taxes than we do, and still pays something like $70 a month for health care. Not sure on copays and such.

I put a nice spiel on the other thread about what is wrong with our healthcare here in the USA and how congress has been messing with it since 1973 and it is getting progressively worse, and now their solution is they want total control of it. They bankrupted SS, you really think they can handle this one?

[MJZiggy]

I agree that when you finally get care in canada it is close to here, but the waiting is a killer for me. I also would say if we never allowed canada to use the drugs and other technical advances we have discovered/created here their care would not be the same.

If we never allowed Canada to use the drugs and other technical advances, we wouldn't have their money which helps PAY for developing said drugs and advances.

The government is in charge of the military and they seem to do ok developing new methods and tools for warfare...the capitalist system kicks in because you can do a lot of business selling technology to the government.

[bobblehead]

This is always true of things where the market fails....like alternative energy until its too late. We should have been handing out benchmark rewards on alternative energy years ago.

In the military there is still a ton of waste, but the gov't does indeed create things they need, but I would say at a much higher cost than the market would do for about anything.

Regarding canada, I agree with your statement, them paying for our technologies helps fuel the innovation....OUR innovation, which comes about because there is a profit incentive.

Anyway, I started a healthcare thread, so its the only place I'm gonna get into this now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

[quote]Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:[/quote

Why don't you just ask me out. Your obsession with me is flattering, but ultimately unhealthy.

[Freak Out]

I have to say I was surprised to see all the hate thrown at the two old ladies that tied the knot yesterday in California. I know the anti gay crowd can be a violent hateful bunch but going after the old gals was pretty low.

[3irty1]

I have to say I was surprised to see all the hate thrown at the two old ladies that tied the knot yesterday in California. I know the anti gay crowd can be a violent hateful bunch but going after the old gals was pretty low.

Yet another reason why the L.A. Vikings makes sense.

[Charles Woodson]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.


Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:

Why don't you just ask me out. Your obsession with me is flattering, but ultimately unhealthy.

how appropriate for this thread :lol:

[Partial]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

[quote]Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:[/quote

Why don't you just ask me out. Your obsession with me is flattering, but ultimately unhealthy.

You can catch.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't get to finish what I was going to write. Kids came in the house and told me how a dad up the street (a traditional family man):P was yelling at them...threw the F-bomb a few times over his kid's plastic lawn ornament squirrel that got broke when she was playing in our yard. Had my son pay him $10 for the ornament since he did play a part in it getting broke....and then told traditional family man if he has a problem with my son in the future I would appreciate him letting me know rather than swearing at my kid. Handed him a bag of wrappers his kids left in my yard and told him respect for property works both ways.

Anyway, I understand you were talking welfare in particular...just irked me a bit how you lumped certain things together.

[quote]Don't read into this in any way as me judging whether or not a traditional family is better or worse, I'm a libertarian as I have said many times, I don't care what people do. HOWEVER I think most women (and men) would rather have a traditional family with steady income and independence, which most public assistance programs in their current form make difficult.

I may not have a traditional family...as you call it but you made reference to having an actual family as well. I'm a single mom, have steady income and major independence and am quite proud of my family.

You'll never be whole and satisfied till you have a man around the house. Tyrone is available...though, he doesn't fulfill the term "man" in the traditional sense. :wink:

anyone wanna take this one :lol: :lol: :shock:[/quote

Why don't you just ask me out. Your obsession with me is flattering, but ultimately unhealthy.

You can catch.

That is the first step...admitting you are interested in other men. Congrats.

[bobblehead]

I have to say I was surprised to see all the hate thrown at the two old ladies that tied the knot yesterday in California. I know the anti gay crowd can be a violent hateful bunch but going after the old gals was pretty low.

No doubt, the religious right is damaging to the conservative movement when they act like this. I can think of no reason gays shouldn't have similar legal rights to heteros, but I can understand people not wanting to redifine a word to satisfy the gay lobby. Man, just grant civil unions and be done with it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have to say I was surprised to see all the hate thrown at the two old ladies that tied the knot yesterday in California. I know the anti gay crowd can be a violent hateful bunch but going after the old gals was pretty low.

No doubt, the religious right is damaging to the conservative movement when they act like this. I can think of no reason gays shouldn't have similar legal rights to heteros, but I can understand people not wanting to redifine a word to satisfy the gay lobby. Man, just grant civil unions and be done with it.

Tex, notably silent today...wonder if he was in Cali pelting the gays with rotten fruit.

[texaspackerbacker]

I have to say I was surprised to see all the hate thrown at the two old ladies that tied the knot yesterday in California. I know the anti gay crowd can be a violent hateful bunch but going after the old gals was pretty low.

No doubt, the religious right is damaging to the conservative movement when they act like this. I can think of no reason gays shouldn't have similar legal rights to heteros, but I can understand people not wanting to redifine a word to satisfy the gay lobby. Man, just grant civil unions and be done with it.

Tex, notably silent today...wonder if he was in Cali pelting the gays with rotten fruit.

Maybe some of ya'all haven't noticed, but Fantasy Football has started up on Yahoo. Drafting has cut into my forum posting time. Also, when I checked into things early this morning, there wasn't much of interest that needed commenting on.

That's the way I would characterize this gay marriage thing. Obviously I'm not in favor of it, but it's hardly a life and death matter--way down the list of issues when it comes to importance.