The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Nothing at all. It has everything to do with the conception of children however.

McGentrix the contrarian only shows up to dispute what others have written. Baldimo has claimed to be white in one thread and not to be white in another. I am as inclined in light of such stories of his to believe anything he writes about himself as i am to believe in the easter bunny, or your fairy tales about the current administration for that matter. It is Baldimo who has destroyed his own credibility with racist remarks and contradictory statements about himself--i have merely pointed them out. Your partisan devotion is such that you tried to defend his use of n*gger, because all you care about is arguing aginst any point made by those with whom you habitually disagree. Which leads me to put as little faith in what you assert as in what Baldimo asserts.

Baldimo was lying in one of those two threads, so his credibility is nil.

So, what was your point?

Wow, mcGentrixz doesn't even understand his own drivel:



This statement most definitely implies if not states directly that gays are not discrminate:

[qoute]If a gay person is the best qualified, they will be hired. [/quote]

Nonsense. You are exaggerrating your case and you know it. Quote me the posts where he claims to be white and then doesn't. That should clear it right up.

You false indignation towards Baldimo's remarks belies your repeatedly haughty online personality. He used that term to make a point that you purposefully missed. You know it. I know it. Now get over it.

Chrissie writes


My point is that all the side trips taken by some to deflect attention from the real issues here are not successful in deflecting me from my core beliefs on this issue. For me it's all about the children and what is best for them. It is my belief that the traditional American family is best for them, and I like the rules that are in place that protect their interest.

I take it you suggest then, that homosexuals would not be good parents? That they would not successfully raise happy, responsible citizens?

You tend to make the point of the author of the thread.

I have several remedial reading courses I can suggest to you Setanta. Please refer to my immediately previous post to Nimh.

You're the one peddling nonsense. He used the term unnecessarily--it wasn't needed to make his point, and you defense of it is as scurrilous as his use of it.





So as anyone can plainly see, Baldimo was lying on one of those two occassions. Now get over it.

It all boils down to prejudice when the veneer is finally peeled away. I still say in many cases, two women make better parents than a man and a woman. And most gay parents are two women not to guys.

What a lot of the bigots do not understand is that, especially among Lesbians who have been together, the relationships are more platonic than anything else. I know many lesbian parents and they do very well as parents and the kids just appear to be normal, well-adjusted kids.

Of course, the bigots have a totally different image. In their mind, they see a kid coming home and catching her or his parents fellating each other!

That's just hilarious, you have one of the lowest demonstrated reading comprehension abilities of anyone i've ever encountered at this site who posts regularly. Before you start whining about personal attacks, keep in mind that you made such a snotty little remark to begin with.

Your response to Habibi was to the effect that you knew no reason why homosexuals would not be good parents. However, you also make the ludicrous assertion that children of racially mixed marriages were worse off at a time when such marriages were condemned--and although you fail to complete the analogy, one can reasonably assume that you would apply the same standard to homosexual couples. You then assert that a family in which there is a mother and a father will do a superior job of raising children, contradicting your earlier statement.

You not only display poor reading comprehension skills, you display poor expressive skills. And of course, you attempt to evade the question.

Boy Setanta. You really DO need those recommended courses if you really believe what you just said is an accurate representation of what you read.

Oh, and some links to the alleged statements from Baldimo so that we could put those in context would give you a lot more credibility in what very much appears to be unfounded accusations of him too.

Keep making the snotty remarks, Vixen, it's very much in character.

Your response to Habibi was all over the road. That is why i specifically asked if you believe that homosexuals cannot raise children to be happy and responsible citizens. You have not answered the question.

Sure they can. But the kids have a better shot with a loving mother and father in the home.

"A better shot?" A better shot at what? You want to have it both ways, just as you did in your response to Habibi. You want to portray yourself as having no bias against homosexuals as parents, and yet you continue to assert that heterosexual couples will make better parents. That line of "reasoning" is just pathetic.

It seemed to me Fox wasn't even commenting about skills or lack thereof of gay parents--but she was saying that children of homosexuals will likely have more difficuly in life because their parents are gay....like maybe interracial children did and, I guess, do.

I can certainly see that point, although we can all reach different conclusions about what should be done about it.

No, I didn't say that children of homosexuals will likely have more difficulty in life. At least they certainly won't because their parents are homosexual. I know too many gay people who are raising children quite competently and quite admirably and so far as I can tell, the kids are just fine.

What I said (and meant) is that children with a loving mother and father in the home have the best shot at being well adjusted on all points. They have the experience that most of us probably had: a mom and a dad. And since males and females typically parent differently, the child has positive role models from both male and female and will have a fuller experience than a single parent or same sex parents can provide.

That does not mean that the child is poorly parented because s/he is reared by a single parent or same sex parents. And if the child has no opportunity to have a loving mother and father, certainly loving single or gay parents are a great alternative.

But knowing that all can be good doesn't negate the opinion that a traditional familiy is still best.

definitely - I personally prefer the traditional father-mother-family portrait. But in today's ever evoloving society, who are we to decide what constitutes today's family? Even the courts have to bow to social change.



Agree again - Not everyone can have it perfect. I was raised by my father alone and I turned out normal (I think!)



Again true - I know I would prefer a traditional father-mother household. It just so happened that my mother hated the idea.

I didn't have it perfect either. An abusive father and an alcoholic mother made for a pretty untraditional upbringing for me and my sibling. The thing some can't seem to grasp though is that sometimes we have to make do with the cards we are dealt, some get a better option, and some get the best option. To recognize that there is a best option in no may demeans the next best options. I just think kids should have the best option whenever that can be provided.

Some support for my point of view:

Dad's Empty Chair
By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 7, 2005
My sister, Sandy, and I were surrounded by family-oriented men when we were growing up in suburban New Jersey. There was my father, Chester, an extremely hard-working upholsterer and slipcover cutter; my Uncle Breeze, who taught me how to box ("Quit jumping around like a grasshopper"); my Uncle William, who raised five kids (four boys and a girl) in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, and later in East Orange, N.J.; and my Uncle Robert, who was an Essex County probation officer.

There were grandfathers who took us to baseball games, and older cousins, and a crew of boisterous characters with names like Moe, Bubby and Earl Love, who worked for my father in his upholstery shops and were as close to my sister and me as blood relatives.

Many of those men are gone now, and the rest are old. Collectively they had a profound influence on how my sister and I viewed the world, and how we've led our lives.

These thoughts came to mind as I was checking out yet another killing of a black child, this time the stabbing death in Brooklyn of a 15-year-old named Christopher Rose. He was walking toward a subway station on Saturday with a group of three friends, one of whom had an iPod. The desire for someone else's iPod (or cellphone or sneakers), in the twisted thinking of the "Lord of the Flies" street culture, is reason enough to murder somebody.

On Saturday it was Christopher Rose's turn to be sacrificed on this altar of madness. As many as a dozen teenagers closed in on Christopher and his friends, beating them and stealing the iPod and other valuables. One of the teens stabbed Christopher twice in the chest.

The attack occurred in the late afternoon on a busy street. When the attackers fled, like a school of sharks receding after a kill, they left behind only grief where a promising youngster once had been.

It was a nightmare that Christopher's father, Errol Rose, had tried for years to ward off. Mr. Rose, who is 53, had always feared that "this current of evil" - the street violence that has taken so many black youngsters - would someday claim his son.

Crime has eased in the past several years, but the toll on the young in many black communities is still horrific. And I can't think of this continuing slaughter of black youngsters without also thinking about the mass flight of black men from their family responsibilities, especially the obligation to look after their children.

Most black people are not poor, and most are law-abiding. But the vacuum left by this exodus of black men from the family scene has nevertheless been devastating, and its destructive effects are felt by entire communities.

Mr. Rose was so concerned about Christopher's safety that he had moved to a small town in Pennsylvania. But he would bring the boy back to Brooklyn to visit relatives on most weekends.

"I was trying to hide him away from all this violence," Mr. Rose said yesterday. "I knew that someday, somehow, somebody was going to approach him and try to hurt him."

There are plenty of youngsters who grow up fine without a father in the home. But that's not a good argument in favor of fatherlessness. Most of the youngsters getting into trouble and preying on others come from fatherless homes, as Mr. Rose pointed out. "There's no one out there," he said, "to tell them: 'Hello! Wake up. You guys have to stop doing what you're doing.' "

Kids who grow up without a father never experience that special sense of security and the enhanced feeling of belonging that come from having a father in the home. So they seek it elsewhere. They don't get that sweet feeling of triumph that comes from a father's approval, or the warmth of the old man's hug, or the wisdom to be drawn from his discipline.

I don't have the statistics to prove it, but black kids would be tremendously better off if the cultural winds changed and more fathers felt the need to come home.

For me, it's an easy call: Moms are crucial. Dads, too.

Mr. Rose said he hoped his son's death would help focus attention on the problems associated with children who grow up without fathers. "There's a crisis as far as the men are concerned," he said. "They've tended to neglect a lot of things. So we've been failing these kids, and I'd like to help turn that around."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07herbert.html?