equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

It's a great speech. You should read it.

we did. it's a great jumping off point to get more people into protected, stable marriages so they can raise children together.

gay or straight.

(funny, Obama never mentions the sheer horror of two men talking to their daughter about tampons -- i guess that's not the most critical issue a parent will ever face?)

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

If you read the speech I posted, you'd know that the President agrees that it's one thing to have a child and another to raise it, but his point is clear -- if you have a child, you're a parent, and you need to raise your game.

It's a great speech. You should read it.

If you have a child, then yes, you are a parent. How poignant! Its one thing to have a child and its another to raise it? No shit. Thats the point. But you can have a child without giving birth to one. You pretty much made that point by not mentioning birth once in your post. you made a point without even intending to. Good for you!
And what makes you think I would give a shit what your president thinks about child rearing, regardless of his stance on it???

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Yes, and i wouldn't let her near my kids either.

So then your post was pointless? Again...

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

So then your post was pointless? Again...

but didnt you see the yucky picture of two boys kissing?

[Irvine511]

i'll just post this so it's easier:

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
Answering the Toughest Questions

Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.



I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Marriage Talking Points - National Organization for Marriage

[Jive Turkey]

I enjoy how they worked racism into the equation, just so they could squash it 2 sentences later

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

So trying to argue that biology doesn't make a difference in the parenting process -- and that the two sexes don't play unique and complimentary roles -- is a bit like pissing into the wind.

A point I've made several times. It's a calculated piss in the wind.

The same-sex marriage debate is about "rights" and "tolerance" and "equality" for adults. That's a debate worth having. Same-sex parenting is another issue and supporters of gay marriage seem to have made a calculated decision to make the dishonest claim that two fathers or mothers is no different than a mother and a father. Why? well to admit otherwise might seriously undercut support by Americans to achieve goal one, redefining marriage into law.

When I say dishonest, I realize many liberals truly believe in the interchangeability of the sexes. But to the rest of us not well-versed in feminist theory, gender fluidity studies, Postmodernism or it's-all-good pop culture -- it's a load of crap which defies all common sense.

What I didn't say but some of you will hear.

Gay couples can't be loving parents or raise great kids.
Traditional parents are always perfect and never abuse or neglect their children.
Kids would be better off in foster homes or sold into the sex slave industry than be adopted by gays.

[Jive Turkey]

I'll take the word of qualified, objective doctors over that of religious yahoos on the internet anyday

Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

A point I've made several times. It's a calculated piss in the wind.

The same-sex marriage debate is about "rights" and "tolerance" and "equality" for adults. That's a debate worth having. Same-sex parenting is another issue and supporters of gay marriage seem to have made a calculated decision to make the dishonest claim that two fathers or mothers is no different than a mother and a father. Why? well to admit otherwise might seriously undercut support by Americans to achieve goal one, redefining marriage into law.

again, we're going to tie parenthood to marriage? go for it.

also, you realize that all states but Florida allow same-sex couples to adopt, and most enthusiastically welcome gay couples because they are much more likely to adopt a child of a different race or with a handicap.

so, again, what point are you trying to make other than the fact that your heterosexuality makes you superior?

When I say dishonest, I realize many liberals truly believe in the interchangeability of the sexes. But to the rest of us not well-versed in feminist theory, gender fluidity studies, Postmodernism or it's-all-good pop culture -- it's a load of crap which defies all common sense.

again, show us how this plays out in childrearing. we're beginning to see that the best environment for a child is with two lesbians. and that heterosexual men are bad fathers, so says our president.

Gay couples can't be loving parents or raise great kids.
Traditional parents are always perfect and never abuse or neglect their children.
Kids would be better off in foster homes or sold into the sex slave industry than be adopted by gays.

yup, gays are mean. for decades, we've harassed and mocked straights. poor you.

What effect does having LGBT parents have on children?

Current research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults. It is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Contrary to popular belief, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:

Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).

[INDY500]

Psychiatry is more political science than medical science. Especially their position on homosexuality. Homosexuality was listed as a disorder for the same reason it was later removed: prevailing attitudes, societal mores and politics. Not science.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Psychiatry is more political science than medical science. .

qft

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Psychiatry is more political science than medical science. Especially their position on homosexuality. Homosexuality was listed as a disorder for the same reason it was later removed: prevailing attitudes, societal mores and politics. Not science.

so you believe in science now? that should be good news for the global warming folks.

what medical science would be applicable in this situation?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by diamond

qft

where are your NDE's!?!?!??!?!

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by diamond

qft

You're glib, diamond - you're glib!!!

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Psychiatry is more political science than medical science. Especially their position on homosexuality. Homosexuality was listed as a disorder for the same reason it was later removed: prevailing attitudes, societal mores and politics. Not science.

its no surprise that intellectual advancement would seem alien to the religious folk

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

its no surprise that intellectual advancement would seem alien to the religious folk

Right, last thing you'd find would be universities, colleges, schools, libraries or hospitals founded, financed and supported by "religious folk."

[Jive Turkey]

and wonderful foundations like The Discovery Institute

[Irvine511]

ok, i'm done for the evening. i'll leave you with this:

YouTube - Glee Cast - Defying Gravity [Chris Colfer (Kurt) Solo Version] (HQ)

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

So you like Hoosiers? Chariots Of Fire is my favorite sports movie.

I love Hoosiers. Fantastic film. And, as my location mentions, I love Shooter's re-telling of his high school playing days.

"Five, four, three, two, one ... LET 'ER FLY! ... In and out ... uh, I was fouled."

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

and wonderful foundations like The Discovery Institute

So why the condescending remark aimed at, in the States anyway, 85% of the population? The discovery Institute doesn't speak for "religious folk" anymore than Nickleback speaks for all Canadians.