User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 180

  1. #71
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Why wouldn't the state endorse gay parenting? It's not like there's a surplus of good homes for children. As long as incidents like this (see below) happen, you're gonna have a really hard time convincing me that allowing gay couples to parent is a bad idea.

    There's not a surplus of good homes because we killed marriage decades ago.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #72
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Nothing is wrong with access to two gendered parents. If you limit gay parenting, however, you are mandating that two sex access by blocking other options. (And what of divorce?)


    While I don't find it so hard to believe that people mirror the traits of their parents and can relate to them based on gender to some degree, overwhelmingly, I think parents can fill in these gaps by talking to their kids about whatever those differences are, consulting books, educators, having other role models around, etc. Something which two gendered or single parents don't always do anyway.

    Not everyone is a good parent and I'd imagine the greatest factor effecting child welfare would be the conditions of the relationship rather than whether it's between two genders or one.
    So I presume then you're not one of the people who had a problem with the all male military panel that was dealing with the military rape issue before congress?
    Just because they're men doesn't mean they couldn't overcome those differences of understanding the plight of women in the military by consulting books and educators.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #73
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I'm not discounting the virtue of families, although we probably define the concept differently. The alternative to a dysfunctional family together is not necessarily a dysfunctional family apart, but often two functional families together, apart from each other. Let a sane person choose which one is better.
    Yes, if you're free to define a family by anyway you want without considering what it actually means to be human then, yes, you could have two families instead of one broken family. But, all the social conditioning in the world can't really change the affect on the child.
    You think I'm insane for thinking this? Really?


    It has nothing to do with our differences.
    Yes, of course it does. You think my view institutes slavery and I think it institutes an obligation that is fundamentally human.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelenOfTroy View Post
    Oh nonsense disco, your transparency is as subtle as a tribal dance.

    Also, you failed.
    I think, given that he is politically 'active', it's more important to him to hit certain talking points than it is to get to the heart of a matter. Then he'll try to subtly slander his 'opponent'. Witness comments like "apparently constitutional concerns aren't common among the lay people". It suggests that what he's arguing is more important than the mere trivialities anyone else brings up; this isn't just important it's of constitutional importance! And of course there's the backhanded insult appended: other people are laymen, they couldn't possibly understand what he's talking about.

    Similarly, I pointed out his last post of exasperation in another political thread, "fuck give it a rest, for like five God damn minutes," etc., a post which he made in response to the same sort of ad nauseum strategy he employs. In the course of doing so I corrected a minor typo, so that's the thing he latched on to rather than admit his own hypocrisy. Another opportunity to put down an 'opponent': "I'm bad with typos, but usually edit my stuff, unless I'm busy with the real world." He makes himself sound magnanimous ("I'm bad with typos") while taking a swipe at me: he's "too busy with the real world" to be bothered with typos, while apparently I have all the time in the world because I'm not "busy with the real world."

    It's all pretty standard-fare deflection and intellectualization. When someone brings up a point to which he has no reasonable defence he deflects with something else, even a complete falsehood. Then when you don't bother falling for the bait he intellectualizes: you're just a 'layperson' who can't comprehend the argument.

    (Beorn and Lark do the same thing too.)

  5. #75
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    There's not a surplus of good homes because we killed marriage decades ago.
    This is such an absurd statement to make. There has never been a surplus of good homes and the "state of marriage" is a non factor.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #76
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The physical difference is in the experience of a child who is denied a parent of one sex or the other. Gay marriage is a state endorsement of gay parenting.

    You don't think there's anything unique you impart to your children by being a woman as opposed to a man?

    I just want to give children equal access to parents of both sexes.

    How is equal access wrong?
    you know what i want for my kids?

    to protect them from closed minded people who say things like that.

    from all the uncivilized bullshit parents in the world who raise bully kids, wife beaters, rapists and gang bangers

    and all the stupid people with zero foresight...zero care or concern for whom they choose to sleep around with, having baby after baby for the welfare check and treat them like unwanted stray dogs

    my spiritual beliefs tell me that is wrong. where's my rights?

    can't my children have access to independent thinkers with compassion and love for humanity instead? people that model the kind of morals that echo my spiritual beliefs?

    not everyone subscribes to your religion.
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  7. #77
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Okay, so let's wind the circle around here, and tell me what for purpose you want this minor detail?
    I want this detail, because it draws a line in the sand as far as constitutional protections are concerned.

    It insures against further encroachment.

    That when a specific practice causes no legal harm that it is protected by the first Amendment.

    For itself alone.
    There are many Churches denominations etc.. and religions.

    And last time I checked they played a rather large role in the gettin' hitched industry.

    I have no idea what the secular religion comment means, but I'm telling you that people only want change the definitions of these things in terms of the civil law. They could not care less what definitions churches use for themselves.
    Basically what I'm saying is that the secularism movement seems to be vying for cultural parity with Religion. The only reason the word marriage is so important is because of how culturally dominant the term has become.

    When viewed from the outside, the adoption of the term marriage by the SSM movement, not only establishes establishes legal parity for SS relationships, but it also takes the term away from religion and turns it on its head.

    This will piss off more people than you need to. Once the the legal questions have been dealt with the name is just a garnish. Something that would be easy concede without losing any real ground and setting a better stage for bipartisanship in the future.

    In another XX number of years the religions may have come to agreement on the subject and it might be all the same thing. I would just ask that you let that happen in its own time and not needlessly agitate people who are already far too agitated.

    Only in circumstances where the practice is law. I see no problem and in fact see a great deal of good in not allowing a religious practice of some particular sect to define the law for everyone.
    Cute use of the word sect. Religion has no say in the law, take your concerns to your congress critter. Religion doesn't now, and never has defined the law, duly elected representatives do that.

    Like I said, it comes into the voting public's opinion, and the process of legislators writing laws and judges upholding them. If there is an allowable objection, it is through that means. If your objections are failing on those fronts, then I'm afraid that's how it works, that's how we handle governance (or we're supposed to anyway).
    40 Lawsuits are making their way to SCOTUS. If we have the same justices we do now.....

    No one gives a shit what the religions want to do within their own institutions. Thus, addressing the concerns of the religious does not enter into this. Unless the concern of the religious is that they won't get to write the laws for us, in which case I'm gladly going to say we should disregard their concerns. There's really only two positions you can take as far as I'm concerned. You can remove government from marriage altogether, which would make your current argument the wrong argument to focus on and a waste of time, or you can allow gays to marry.
    The religious care, and there aren't a few of us. So yes people do give a shit. Our elected officials write our laws, and currently Dem's. occupy the white house and the senate petition them. I would prefer to have my team in office as well, but I don't view Obama's presidency as the end of the world. Save your apoplepsy.

    The operative part of that sentence is "as far as you are concerned". You is a rather small sample size.

    You can remove government from religion all together.

  8. #78
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Magic Poriferan stripped you naked pretty fast. I appreciate that you stayed around afterwards so that we all could get a look.
    I find him tedious, but your taunt forced my hand.

  9. #79
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I want this detail, because it draws a line in the sand as far as constitutional protections are concerned.

    It insures against further encroachment.
    Churches gave up any claim to define marriage when they had it enshrined as law. At that moment, they gave that power to the state and the church will never get it back. Christians have no one but themselves to blame for what appears to be a breach of separation of church and state. They're the ones who breached it. Deal with it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #80
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    So I presume then you're not one of the people who had a problem with the all male military panel that was dealing with the military rape issue before congress?
    Just because they're men doesn't mean they couldn't overcome those differences of understanding the plight of women in the military by consulting books and educators.
    I don't know about that example. But with books, educators, who indeed, I would guess and hope, interacted with women and took their experience in good measure, I think that's fine. Having it come from a woman (where relevant) directly would be nice, but I don't think it must be mandatory (and I'd consider the 'need' to have a female representative to generally be political posturing more than anything else, if the information was presented fairly).

    It's all based in having an accurate concept to relay to the child. Or to the congress, in any case.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ - Question about your inner monolouge
    By Shinzon in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 12:40 AM
  2. 3 questions about MBTI
    By alcea rosea in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 08:49 AM
  3. Quick question about a concert venue...
    By Cindyrella in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 01:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO