[quote]storey420 wrote:
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…[/quote]
With sanctimonious attitudes like this the generation 150 years from now will be blaming your generation for the complete loss of our liberty and Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms
Back to the topic, the political implications of Obama’s “coming out” on the issue: the NYT/CBS poll has Romney at 46%, Obama at 43%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama/
Despite Obama’s attempted “war on women” schtick, Romney leads in the women category here, and…
Asked if they had to decide if same-sex marriage should be legal, 51 percent said no, including 81 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents. Forty-two percent said yes, including 13 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of independents.
Was Obama’s announcement a (bad) turning point?
I think it was, and not necssarily because of gay marriage per se, in a vacuum. Obama has desperately tried to defend against claims that he was far-left - he’s done it since 2008. Voters have increasingly refused to believe he is a moderate, and voters have made clear they don’t want a far-left candidate as president. I think the gay marriage announcement cements his fate that he will now be perceived as far-left - it could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back - and even if this one issue doesn’t change many voters’ minds on all its own, it confirms doubts of Obama’s “centrism”, and voters - especially independents - are polling accordingly.
In other words, voters aren’t moving away from Obama purely because of the gay marriage announcement - they are moving away from his because the gay marriage announcement confirms larger fears that he isn’t the “no red state/no blue state” post-partisan he advertised himself to be in 2008.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
False, because if it is a civil rights issue - and marriage must be granted on the basis that these newcomers to marriage cannot have their relationships discriminated against, that rule of non-discrimination must be applied to other newcomers as well.
It’s not a slippery slope, because it isn’t a slope at all. If the principle exists that you say exists, it applies right now to all other alternative marriage arrangements, like polygamy.
You haven’t done anything but demonstrate you have no idea what you’re talking baout.[/quote]
If there is a reason - as in polygamous marriage do not promote the creation of stable households for children it’s not discrimination. Again it has to be studied first.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
False, there has been no studies done over any durable period of time, and there certainly hasn’t been “plenty” of it. [/quote]
“Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: â??Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rightsâ??.[24] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[27] the National Association of Social Workers,[28] the Child Welfare League of America,[29] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[30] and Canadian Psychological Association.[31] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: “If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.”[7]”
That means hundreds if not thousands of medical professionals with related expertise are all in agreement on this issue. Your opinion is going against the consensus in the medical community.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Answer one question, Raraj - do you think children raised by their biological parents are no better off than those raised by a gay couple? Yes or no?[/quote]
Based on the evidence no they are equal. It comes down to the two individuals rearing the child(ren) not biology.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it isn’t and such a statement is dumb as hell - traditional marriage laws have been on the books for millenia, and not a one of them was passed to privilege heterosexuals at the expense of gays. Not one. That was never the motive for creating a public policy of marriage - tradtional marriage laws have never been motivated by “bigotry”.
What a clown.[/quote]
Homosexuality has only recently become socially acceptable in society. Laws are shaped by the attitudes of the society making them. It may have not been directly motivated by bigotry, but bigotry influenced policy overall at the time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We’ll see how interested you are in serving the minority when polygamists demand “qual rights.”[/quote]
When there are some credible studies on polygamy that validate those types of relationships I will be.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You believe what you want to believe because you have an agenda.
[/quote]
What agenda do you think I have?
I’m not a homosexual and the only ones I know are acquaintances.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s because they are, and there is nothing controversial about that. The biological parents are indisputably the best people to raise their own child. Every other arrangement is inferior to that, definitionally. Anyone who disagrees with that is deluded. [/quote]
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I say you’re making blind assertions. Do you have any actual evidence to say that biological parents are more capable of raising children than LGBT parents? Even if we assuming for a second there wasn’t evidence for LGBT parenting (which there is) the best you’d have is “we don’t know how LGBT parenting compares.”
So provide real evidence for this assertion or stop writing it. It’s meaningless without evidence.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone cares - i.e., anyone was following my dialogue with Tiribulus about the history of civil and religious marriage - I won’t be continuing it. I post this because I didn’t want my silence on Tiribulus’ posts to be construed as anything but what it is - I have no interest in continuing dialogue with him. Be advised.[/quote]
That is a pity,I was enjoying the bitch slapping you were delivering and was hoping you would continue the schooling.[/quote]So was I, but you’re more than welcome to help him out. It doesn’t appear I will get answers from him. Not because I’m so brilliant, but because he’s so wrong. He all but slipped out the truth in that last post I responded to. Retreat by any other name is retreat nonetheless. “Oh boy , here goes arrogant Tiribulus again” Right? Fine. Show my error.
EDIT: One other thing. I stand by every complimentary word I’ve ever typed about Thunderbolt. He is very VERY sharp and I greatly respect, still, his tremendous abilities, including his education which clearly exceeds mine in most areas. This has only to do with the misrepresentation of the prevailing mindset of those who launched the, bar none and with all her foibles, greatest nation state in history.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s because they are, and there is nothing controversial about that. The biological parents are indisputably the best people to raise their own child. Every other arrangement is inferior to that, definitionally. Anyone who disagrees with that is deluded.
Do you honestly believe that? That there’s no qualitative difference at all between being raised by biological parents responsible for bringing you into this world and being raised by…anyone else?
[/quote]
It has already been mentioned earlier that there are examples of marriages that don’t have or can’t have children. When comparing gay marriages you have to compare them to all other marriages in which fit these categories which also don’t fit the ideal of being raised by both biological parents
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In any event, traditional marriage laws were passed without a moment’s thought about gays. No one cared about them at the time or decided enacting tradiational marriages laws would be a good way to “stick it” to gays and maintain heterosexual supremacy. The enactment of traditional marriage laws didn’ty have an ounce of invidious motives.
[/quote]
They were not aware of them at the time so obviously it was overlooked, hence the need to revisit the laws. At one time in human history there was no racism, not because we were better people but because we were unaware there existed people that looked different than us.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone cares - i.e., anyone was following my dialogue with Tiribulus about the history of civil and religious marriage - I won’t be continuing it. I post this because I didn’t want my silence on Tiribulus’ posts to be construed as anything but what it is - I have no interest in continuing dialogue with him. Be advised.[/quote]
That is a pity,I was enjoying the bitch slapping you were delivering and was hoping you would continue the schooling.[/quote]So was I, but you’re more than welcome to help him out. It doesn’t appear I will get answers from him. Not because I’m so brilliant, but because he’s so wrong. He all but slipped out the truth in that last post I responded to. Retreat by any other name is retreat nonetheless. “Oh boy , here goes arrogant Tiribulus again” Right? Fine. Show my error.
EDIT: One other thing. I stand by every complimentary word I’ve ever typed about Thunderbolt. He is very VERY sharp and I greatly respect, still, his tremendous abilities, including his education which clearly exceeds mine in most areas. This has only to do with the misrepresentation of the prevailing mindset of those who launched the, bar none and with all her foibles, greatest nation state in history.[/quote]
I couldn’t begin to approach TB’s extensive knowledge on any level on this argument as it relates to the founders of the USA and their intent or motivations, so I wouldn’t take up the cudgel in this particular instance.
But I fully understand the why he doesn’t pursue it any further with you, and it isn’t because you’re cleaning his clocks or putting forward a particularly effective argument. It’s because you’re a stuck record, and you, TB, and I are all old enough to remember what a nut ache those were.
I’ve read your post on here for a long time, followed many of the threads of a religious nature that you have started and participated in, and you come across as a bit…unhinged.
Of course I can only form an opinion based on what you write here, so it is a very limited viewpoint. But even within that, you are a one trick pony that just doesn’t have too much to offer other than a very limited and specific biblical perspective within the confines of your own narrow vision. So thanks for the invite, but I’ll pass.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone cares - i.e., anyone was following my dialogue with Tiribulus about the history of civil and religious marriage - I won’t be continuing it. I post this because I didn’t want my silence on Tiribulus’ posts to be construed as anything but what it is - I have no interest in continuing dialogue with him. Be advised.[/quote]
That is a pity,I was enjoying the bitch slapping you were delivering and was hoping you would continue the schooling.[/quote]So was I, but you’re more than welcome to help him out. It doesn’t appear I will get answers from him. Not because I’m so brilliant, but because he’s so wrong. He all but slipped out the truth in that last post I responded to. Retreat by any other name is retreat nonetheless. “Oh boy , here goes arrogant Tiribulus again” Right? Fine. Show my error.
EDIT: One other thing. I stand by every complimentary word I’ve ever typed about Thunderbolt. He is very VERY sharp and I greatly respect, still, his tremendous abilities, including his education which clearly exceeds mine in most areas. This has only to do with the misrepresentation of the prevailing mindset of those who launched the, bar none and with all her foibles, greatest nation state in history.[/quote]
I couldn’t begin to approach TB’s extensive knowledge on any level on this argument as it relates to the founders of the USA and their intent or motivations, so I wouldn’t take up the cudgel in this particular instance.
But I fully understand the why he doesn’t pursue it any further with you, and it isn’t because you’re cleaning his clocks or putting forward a particularly effective argument. It’s because you’re a stuck record, and you, TB, and I are all old enough to remember what a nut ache those were.
I’ve read your post on here for a long time, followed many of the threads of a religious nature that you have started and participated in, and you come across as a bit…unhinged.
Of course I can only form an opinion based on what you write here, so it is a very limited viewpoint. But even within that, you are a one trick pony that just doesn’t have too much to offer other than a very limited and specific biblical perspective within the confines of your own narrow vision. So thanks for the invite, but I’ll pass.
[/quote]
Insert bears repeating jpeg.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< I couldn’t begin to approach TB’s extensive knowledge on any level on this argument as it relates to the founders of the USA and their intent or motivations, >>>[/quote]Which is exactly why he knows what I’m saying is true. I will grant that maybe there was a bit of a communication issue for a minute there, but I think he sees my point which happens to be quite correct overall. He says he doesn’t wanna talk to me anymore. If he changes his mind I will never throw it in his face. Here’s what people like you and Christine do not get. Your agreement would be to me evidence that I was forsaking the truth of my God. I also do not go out of my way to be a jackass, but your charge of being unhinged, for the reasons you charge it, is music to my ears.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< I couldn’t begin to approach TB’s extensive knowledge on any level on this argument as it relates to the founders of the USA and their intent or motivations, >>>[/quote]Which is exactly why he knows what I’m saying is true. I will grant that maybe there was a bit of a communication issue for a minute there, but I think he sees my point which happens to be quite correct overall. He says he doesn’t wanna talk to me anymore. If he changes his mind I will never throw it in his face. Here’s what people like you and Christine do not get. Your agreement would be to me evidence that I was forsaking the truth of my God. I also do not go out of my way to be a jackass, but your charge of being unhinged, for the reasons you charge it, is music to my ears.
[/quote]
Lol…people like us, eh? Here’s what you don’t get…your ego is so massive and you arrogance is so unbounded, that it removes any possibility of you being an effective communicator about your faith to any other than the equally unhinged or the deeply emotionally desperate. But good luck with that anyhow. Bids of a feather and all that…
There’s no such thing as luck, but that’s anyhow. Those with ears to hear will hear. Dogmatic confidence is not the same as ego, though in today’s world of tolerant relativism they will appear pretty much indistinguishable. Anyhow. The enemy combatant occupying our whitehouse has declared war on the defense of marriage act as I’m sure all have heard. This country is skipping gleefully right off a cliff of it’s own making.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There’s no such thing as luck, but that’s anyhow. Those with ears to hear will hear. Dogmatic confidence is not the same as ego, though in today’s world of tolerant relativism they will appear pretty much indistinguishable. Anyhow. The enemy combatant occupying our whitehouse has declared war on the defense of marriage act as I’m sure all have heard. This country is skipping gleefully right off a cliff of it’s own making.[/quote]
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…but hey, whatever gets you through the day.
Unless you don’t know a duck when you see one. Man I need to slow down. The typos are getting embarrassing. That should have read “thanks anyhow” above.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Unless you don’t know a duck when you see one. Man I need to slow down. The typos are getting embarrassing. That should have read “thanks anyhow” above. [/quote]
And not to mention getting all your exercise jumping to conclusions and laboring under illusions. But enough hijacking now, let the argument regarding the collapse of Western Civilization because of gay marriage continue…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But I fully understand the why he doesn’t pursue it any further with you, and it isn’t because you’re cleaning his clocks or putting forward a particularly effective argument. It’s because you’re a stuck record, and you, TB, and I are all old enough to remember what a nut ache those were.[/quote]
And just to clarify, my discontinuation of dialogue with Tiribulus isn’t the function of anything he said in this thread, although I was growing tired of his “stuck record” approach here. It’s the result of a communication outside of this thread. I just didn’t want there to be any confusion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Based on the evidence no they are equal. It comes down to the two individuals rearing the child(ren) not biology.[/quote]
I love Wikipedia as much as the next person who doesn’t want to have to go do real homework, but are you sure…are you sure…there’s no conclusion in the scientific community that children are best raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage?
You sure about that?
[quote]
Homosexuality has only recently become socially acceptable in society. Laws are shaped by the attitudes of the society making them. It may have not been directly motivated by bigotry, but bigotry influenced policy overall at the time.[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, your claim is false but true?
What a clown.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I say you’re making blind assertions. Do you have any actual evidence to say that biological parents are more capable of raising children than LGBT parents? Even if we assuming for a second there wasn’t evidence for LGBT parenting (which there is) the best you’d have is “we don’t know how LGBT parenting compares.”
So provide real evidence for this assertion or stop writing it. It’s meaningless without evidence. [/quote]
Setting aside common sense and thousands of years of history, oh, and common sense, have you bothered to see if there are any studies/conclusions that children are best off when they are raised by their biological parents?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It has already been mentioned earlier that there are examples of marriages that don’t have or can’t have children. When comparing gay marriages you have to compare them to all other marriages in which fit these categories which also don’t fit the ideal of being raised by both biological parents
Stop avoiding the question - do you believe it? Do you believe there is no qualitative difference between children being raised by their biological parents and…anyone else?
Just answer it.
Did you really just write that? At one point, there was no racism in human history?
That’s fantastic news. When did this happen? Can’t wait to hear details.