Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

okie wrote:

Uhhhhh, Mesquite, I hate to burst your balloon, but the plumbing is not compatible.

Never sell Foxfyre short okie.

0 Replies

Bernard, I don't base my sense of right and wrong on what the courts say about anything. I am 100% convinced every child, whether gay or straight, benefits enormously from having a loving mother AND father in the home. That doesn't rule out gay couples or single persons, whether gay or straight, from being exemplary parents and I don't exclude any decent competent person from the adoption process if no suitable married couple steps forward to adopt the child. And I have to admit I know some married couples who in my opinion are terrible parents.

If the parent is competent, I also think blood relationships and/or relationships that have already bonded trump everything else.

But all other things bieng equal, the child benefits hugely in a home with a mom and a dad. And I condemn the ACLU who would try to prevent that being the policy.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am 100% convinced

Well, that's often the case.

Quote:

But all other things bieng equal, the child benefits hugely in a home with a mom and a dad. And I condemn the ACLU who would try to prevent that being the policy.

We note the condemnation. Bill Bennett was on Jon Stewart about a month or two past. He said "Gay marriage is coming" and he went on with the implication that there's nothing anyone can do about it now...an inevitable change across western culture.

The related issue you speak of too will fall away from discrimination and towards equality, towards liberty and towards dignity for all citizens. Tip o' the hat to the ACLU and to the liberty principle rolling, like an Israeli bulldozer perhaps, over our homo condemners.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But all other things bieng equal, the child benefits hugely in a home with a mom and a dad. And I condemn the ACLU who would try to prevent that being the policy.

I think the jury is still out on that score. Didn't you attempt to prove the point on another thread a while back and have difficulty finding scientifically valid data?

In the old model of the two parent family with the stay at home mother and working father, the mother was the one that had the greatest influence on the children. Even when the parents separated it was typically the mother that gained custody.

Today's model is different. There are much fewer stay at home mothers, and day care and grand parents have taken over that roll. There is also a greater percentage single parent fathers than ever before. When a family is missing a mother or father, usually aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, or friends help to fill the void.

In my experience, and admittedly the sample size is small, the same sex parents that I know are doing every bit as well as the heterosexual parents in raising their children.

To attach a more significant weight to the sex of the potential parents than to all of the other factors that contribute to the upbringing of the children is simply foolish.

The biggest concern that I have on this issue is that there is still so much bigotry and prejudice that the kids will be exposed to. Of course this varies greatly from one area to another.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But all other things bieng equal, the child benefits hugely in a home with a mom and a dad. And I condemn the ACLU who would try to prevent that being the policy.

I think the jury is still out on that score. Didn't you attempt to prove the point on another thread a while back and have difficulty finding scientifically valid data?

In the old model of the two parent family with the stay at home mother and working father, the mother was the one that had the greatest influence on the children. Even when the parents separated it was typically the mother that gained custody.

Today's model is different. There are much fewer stay at home mothers, and day care and grand parents have taken over that roll. There is also a greater percentage single parent fathers than ever before. When a family is missing a mother or father, usually aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, or friends help to fill the void.

In my experience, and admittedly the sample size is small, the same sex parents that I know are doing every bit as well as the heterosexual parents in raising their children.

To attach a more significant weight to the sex of the potential parents than to all of the other factors that contribute to the upbringing of the children is simply foolish.

The biggest concern that I have on this issue is that there is still so much bigotry and prejudice that the kids will be exposed to. Of course this varies greatly from one area to another.

I found a LOT of valid scientific data and posted it. The data others posted in an attempt to disprove it was a lot harder to support as either scientific or valid.

You guys can talk til the cows come home in your effort to dismantle the traditional family and elevate your liberal notions to some superior concept (in your mind), but you'll never be able to prove that a child does not benefit from having a loving dad in the home or that a child doesn't need mom as much as s/he needs dad.

That fact that so many children don't have that these days does not change that reality. And it is a tragedy for many if not most of those children who don't.

And your notion that a traditional mom & pop household will further bigotry and hatred or a policy giving traditional households first preference for adoption will do that is as squirrely as others trying to prove that a gay parent will cause a child to be gay or screwed up or whatever. Both ideas are huge red herrings.

0 Replies

squirrels are very good parents Razz

0 Replies

foxfyre said

Quote:

You guys can talk til the cows come home in your effort to dismantle the traditional family

Do you actually think before you type? Do you suppose, surely you aren't so detached from reality, that anyone here is busy figuring out ways to "dismantle the traditional family"?

Quote:

and elevate your liberal notions to some superior concept (in your mind),

Superior? Only insofar as working to reduce discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or any other such injustice/inequality is "superior" to forwarding such discrimination. But you are certainly accurate in describing the pursuits of liberty, equality and dignity as "liberal" pursuits.

Quote:

but you'll never be able to prove that a child does not benefit from having a loving dad in the home or that a child doesn't need mom as much as s/he needs dad.

That's not a proof we have to provide. No more than anyone had to provide proof that children of interracial marriages would not have benefited from being raised in a uni-racial home.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

foxfyre said
Quote:
You guys can talk til the cows come home in your effort to dismantle the traditional family

Do you actually think before you type? Do you suppose, surely you aren't so detached from reality, that anyone here is busy figuring out ways to "dismantle the traditional family"?

Do you ever really listen to what you're saying when you get on your judgmental high horse and criticize others for the way they express themselves?

Anybody who was the least bit interested in having a conversation instead of oneupmanship or requiring submission from the other would know what I mean by dismantling the traditional family. Whenver you attempt to put other family structures on the same level as the traditional family structure when it comes to providing an environment for children, you are in effect dismantleing the traditional family as a necessary or even beneficial institution.

Quote:

and elevate your liberal notions to some superior concept (in your mind),

Quote:

Superior? Only insofar as working to reduce discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or any other such injustice/inequality is "superior" to forwarding such discrimination. But you are certainly accurate in describing the pursuits of liberty, equality and dignity as "liberal" pursuits.

And it is lines like that that drive conservatives crazy. I've tried so many times to explain why your view here is straw man, red herring, and liberal blindness so many times I know it is futile to even attempt it again. I think the modern liberal, as described by you here, is the least tolerant, inclusive, interested in principles of equality and dignity than almost all other groups. You probably do come out a bit better there than the Islamofacist extremists though, so you can take comfort in that.

But both you and they think that everybody has to be exactly the same to be equal, acceptable, undiscriminated against, etc. The problem with that is toaccomplish it, you have to make everybody the same and that means diminishing everything to the lowest common denominator. I prefer to shoot for equal opportunity to achieve the best, not equality of outcome. But that's just me.

Quote:

Quote:
but you'll never be able to prove that a child does not benefit from having a loving dad in the home or that a child doesn't need mom as much as s/he needs dad.

That's not a proof we have to provide. No more than anyone had to provide proof that children of interracial marriages would not have benefited from being raised in a uni-racial home

It's a truth I'm prepared to defend in any way I can though. And whatever analogies you throw in there, it still doesn't change the truth of it.

0 Replies

The thing is though, Barnard, I think a bad law should not be ignored, but the people should work to change it. I think a total ban on gays adopting children is a bad law. So it would be much better to change the law than lobby the court to overrule it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you ever really listen to what you're saying when you get on your judgmental high horse and criticize others for the way they express themselves?

Absolutely. If I was marking you, I'd drop you a grade simply for expressing yourself inaccurately. Careless writing is a consequence of careless thinking. And thinking these matters through with care is what we ought to be doing.

Quote:

Anybody who was the least bit interested in having a conversation instead of oneupmanship or requiring submission from the other would know what I mean by dismantling the traditional family. Whenver you attempt to put other family structures on the same level as the traditional family structure when it comes to providing an environment for children, you are in effect dismantleing the traditional family as a necessary or even beneficial institution.

And here's where your thinking came acropper above. You could not resist the cliche "dismantling the family". Cliches don't help us think carefully, they function to avoid precisely that.

I'm not going to bother critiquing the rest of your sentences and logic because I'm not going to have any effect on your certainties.

But I might, at least, be able to encourage you to drop these cliches as you write.

0 Replies

You may be right that a total ban on gays adopting children may be a bad law. However, I do not agree. I think that the family, the nuclear family composed of a mother and a father is by far the best situation for any child. Evolution has worked for hundreds of thousands of years and has produced men and women whose glandular systems and hormonal systems are EXPRESSLY SUITED for the nurturance of children.

It is not for nothing that most Medical Authorities press for breast feeding as a SUPERIOR method to ensure the health of new borns.

Anyone who attempts to say that the affective systems of the average homosexual is QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIIVELY EQUAL to a woman's system knows nothing about biology and psychology.

We shall see the direction in which the US courts will go on this issue.

Of course, there are those "Sick" people whose minds have become disoriented by illness who cannot understand the claims made by evolution on the best way children can be raised!

0 Replies

Well 'sick' is a bit extreme, but be careful. You'll be accused of using cliches. I honestly thought 'dismantling the traditional family' was an original with me, but apparently it is a cliche. Live and learn. That is unfortunate though to be unable to use a term that describes what one wishes to say in a few words. The alternative is a lot of pendantic expounding and posturing. And that is so unfun to read. Oh well.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
But all other things bieng equal, the child benefits hugely in a home with a mom and a dad. And I condemn the ACLU who would try to prevent that being the policy.

I think the jury is still out on that score. Didn't you attempt to prove the point on another thread a while back and have difficulty finding scientifically valid data?

I found a LOT of valid scientific data and posted it. The data others posted in an attempt to disprove it was a lot harder to support as either scientific or valid.

Your recollection may be a bit foggy there. You posted a list of links here and patiodog chewed them up and spit them out here[/u].

0 Replies

Fox, can you explain how granting rights to gays somehow dismantles the traditional family? That doesn't make sense. Further, do you have any proof that a loving gay couple wouldn't also provide a good upbringing for a child.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Patio Dog? What court does he sit on? In which district?

patiodog is a member of the A2K court of common sense, critical thought and logic. Did you have any specific problem with the critique of Foxfyre's study links that I provided, or are you just doing a turkey strut?

BernardR wrote:

Of course, he can reference positions which play to his prejudices. But there is one thing he CANNOT do and that is to erase the findings of the 11th Circuit Court. If Mesquite thinks that this court's findings will not be replicated again and again in future hearings on this matter, he knows NOTHING about the law.

Yep, a panel of three judges in Georgia is certain to set a trend for the rest of the nation just as the ninth circuit court has done.

BernardR wrote:

I wonder if Mesquite and/or Patio Dog know what "several millenia of human experience" mean?

I look at it as several thousand years of continuous learning and improvement.

People with your mindset once thought that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

Only a hundred and fifty years ago it was the law of the land in Georgia to allow the owning of human beings, to buy, sell, trade, abuse or even execute them at will if their skin was a dark enough color.

Only a hundred years ago women were considered too weak minded to be allowed to vote.

It was only fifty years ago segregation was finally eliminated in that progressive state of Georgia.

Why heck over the last few millennia even the medical profession has learned a few new tricks and blood-letting in no longer a standard treatment.

There is just no end to the progress that can be made if we take off the blinders and use our brain for its intended purpose. The problems arise when the blinders are left on for certain portions of the thought processes.

Conservatives are fond of slippery slope arguments. The slipperiest slope of all is that once the brain is trained to accept on faith that which is not supported by evidence, there is no limit to the nonsense that it can absorb.

BernardR wrote:

That statement did not come from a site that was sympathetic to gay rights. It came from a federal court!!!

But BernardR, what does the ruling of a federal court have to do with critiquing a list of studies submitted by Foxfyre that did not support her contention.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, can you explain how granting rights to gays somehow dismantles the traditional family? That doesn't make sense. Further, do you have any proof that a loving gay couple wouldn't also provide a good upbringing for a child.

No I can't explain how granting rights to gays somehow dismantles the traditional family since I said nothing like that. And I don't have any proof that a loving gay couple wouldn't provide a good upbringing for a child, but then I didn't say that either.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know