I'm ignorant? if you didnt know mandela was a terrorist(he headed the spear of the nation) or that he was a communist(he wrote a pamphlet called "how to be a good communist" for god sakes!)then it is you my friend who is ignorant.
Lol, someone is still brainwashed to be scared of the evil commies.
NOTHING is "the same thing". There is no black-and-white, written-in-stone "father" experience, nor a "mother" experience. All moms and dads are different.
There's a general father/mother experience in which the innate biological differences between men and women play a role.
If people really wanted to ride for 2-gender households, they'd be attacking the heterosexual divorce rate (you know, the couples that actually create new kids). That fact that people don't is suspect.
If people really wanted to ride for 2-gender households, they'd be attacking the heterosexual divorce rate (you know, the couples that actually create new kids). That fact that people don't is suspect.
edit - :5pager:
Put me down on the record.....I attack the heterosexual PARENTAL divorce rate. It's a reflection of our selfish society where an adult's happiness and convenience supercedes that of their children's needs.
(yeah, yeah, yeah.....I know there are exceptions, abusive relationships, etc.)
(you know, the couples that actually create new kids)
You realize gay couple's can create new kids too, right? At least here they can. But i agree the high divorce rate is a bad thing, but it's something you can't do much about i think.
(you know, the couples that actually create new kids)
You realize gay couple's can create new kids too, right? At least here they can. But i agree the high divorce rate is a bad thing, but it's something you can't do much about i think.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
They can be happily married and good parents but theyre still selfish (IMO) since they don't respect the right of a child to have a mother & father. I'm not saying kids who get raised by gay parents are worse off than hetero parents. It's just that they have a biological right which was conciously (which is not the case with death/divorce) taken away from them.
You realize gay couple's can create new kids too, right? At least here they can.
Photo or Diagram plaese???
for carpet munchers - invitro
for pound hounds - surrogate moms with a mixture of their sperm
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that??? what about hetro couples that don't want kids???? I don't get my marriage and procreation are bound at the hip.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
They can be happily married and good parents but theyre still selfish (IMO) since they don't respect the right of a child to have a mother & father. I'm not saying kids who get raised by gay parents are worse off than hetero parents. It's just that they have a biological right which was conciously (which is not the case with death/divorce) taken away from them.
so i guess you'd put single moms in the same category?
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that???
Not me. I actually think they should have all the same rights as hetero couples apart from what i mentioned earlier. And if they can't live without children they should adopt a child.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
They can be happily married and good parents but theyre still selfish (IMO) since they don't respect the right of a child to have a mother & father. I'm not saying kids who get raised by gay parents are worse off than hetero parents. It's just that they have a biological right which was conciously (which is not the case with death/divorce) taken away from them.
You sound . Do you know any gay parents besides your own.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
They can be happily married and good parents but theyre still selfish (IMO) since they don't respect the right of a child to have a mother & father. I'm not saying kids who get raised by gay parents are worse off than hetero parents. It's just that they have a biological right which was conciously (which is not the case with death/divorce) taken away from them.
Divorce is not a conscious decision? And what's the difference anyway? Most marriages end in divorce as was already pointed out.
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that???
Not me. I actually think they should have all the same rights as hetero couples apart from what i mentioned earlier. And if they can't live without children they should adopt a child.
Is anyone else confused by the inconsistency of this statement?
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that???
Not me. I actually think they should have all the same rights as hetero couples apart from what i mentioned earlier. And if they can't live without children they should adopt a child.
Is anyone else confused by the inconsistency of this statement?
is 'hypocrisy,' the word you are looking for? its harsher, so i choose that one.
Divorce is not a conscious decision? And what's the difference anyway? Most marriages end in divorce as was already pointed out.
Yes, you are right. It is a concious decision. But what i meant was that when the parents have have a child, they assume they are going to be together to raise the child together. It's the same with death. But gay couples know (but don't comprehend the consequences IMO) before-hand that they will raise their child without a mother or father. Sorry if my english is confusing you.
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that???
Not me. I actually think they should have all the same rights as hetero couples apart from what i mentioned earlier. And if they can't live without children they should adopt a child.
Is anyone else confused by the inconsistency of this statement?
is 'hypocrisy,' the word you are looking for? its harsher, so i choose that one.
Well, please let me know what's inconsistent/hypocrit. (if it's the word 'all' combined with 'apart', i can understand, but i meant 'all the other')
Whatever. Being against gay marriage is a losing battle. And it's not like marriage is such a sacred deal anyways. Not even 2000 years ago was it truly sacred. If you want to be faithful to someone and spend the rest of your life with them, you don't need a mariage licence to make it so. This is such a bullshit wedge issue and it shouldn't be such a big part of government policy.
Side note: I would be against forcing any church into marrying anyone tho.
I dont much care whether gays are allowed to marry or not but I must say the arguments in favour are truly appalling and betray an ignorance of history, the concept of natural rights as enshrined by the constitution and the general workings of government.
State sanctioned marriage is a state conferred benefit. If you are to oppose it on grounds of equality then to be consistent youd have to declare social security ageist and denounce food stamps for discriminating against the employed. The inequality argument becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that the the only real reason marriage laws exist in the first place are to ensure this is the case ie. prevent such unions which the majority(or current ruling political class) doesnt approve of
A stronger position would be to argue against any state involvement in the institution of marriage at all
Divorce is not a conscious decision? And what's the difference anyway? Most marriages end in divorce as was already pointed out.
Yes, you are right. It is a concious decision. But what i meant was that when the parents have have a child, they assume they are going to be together to raise the child together. It's the same with death. But gay couples know (but don't comprehend the consequences IMO) before-hand that they will raise their child without a mother or father. Sorry if my english is confusing you.
so if someone has say cancer, or some other terminal illness they shouldn't be allowed to have a child? What if they're crippled? Are they allowed to have a kid or will they rob them of the full parenting experience?
I dont much care whether gays are allowed to marry or not but I must say the arguments in favour are truly appalling and betray an ignorance of history, the concept of natural rights as enshrined by the constitution and the general workings of government.[/b]
State sanctioned marriage is a state conferred benefit. If you are to oppose it on grounds of equality then to be consistent youd have to declare social security ageist and denounce food stamps for discriminating against the employed. The inequality argument becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that the the only real reason marriage laws exist in the first place are to ensure this is the case ie. prevent such unions which the majority(or current ruling political class) doesnt approve of
A stronger position would be to argue against any state involvement in the institution of marriage at all
so if someone has say cancer, or some other terminal illness they shouldn't be allowed to have a child?
That's a real good question which i have never thought about. But i have to say, if the disease is really terminal (within a couple of years) they shouldnt do it. But there is no way i can refuse them to do it. Same with gay couples by the way.
What if they're crippled? Are they allowed to have a kid or will they rob them of the full parenting experience?
I'm dead serious. If a father is to fulfill a traditional role, then it's a problem. Someone in a wheelchair can't play soccer with their kid. They can't be much of an authority figure because come on, what are they going to do? I don't think cripples should be allowed to have kids!
Comments
Lol, someone is still brainwashed to be scared of the evil commies.
LOLZ YOU TOOK ME OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! U R FUNEY.
edit - :5pager:
Put me down on the record.....I attack the heterosexual PARENTAL divorce rate. It's a reflection of our selfish society where an adult's happiness and convenience supercedes that of their children's needs.
(yeah, yeah, yeah.....I know there are exceptions, abusive relationships, etc.)
You realize gay couple's can create new kids too, right? At least here they can.
But i agree the high divorce rate is a bad thing, but it's something you can't do much about i think.
Maybe you should ban it if you don't like it, but I guess it doesn't bother you as much as gay people who might be happily married and good parents.
Photo or Diagram plaese???
They can be happily married and good parents but theyre still selfish (IMO) since they don't respect the right of a child to have a mother & father. I'm not saying kids who get raised by gay parents are worse off than hetero parents. It's just that they have a biological right which was conciously (which is not the case with death/divorce) taken away from them.
for carpet munchers - invitro
for pound hounds - surrogate moms with a mixture of their sperm
For those who're against gay marriage - what if they have zero interest in having kids???? are you against that??? what about hetro couples that don't want kids???? I don't get my marriage and procreation are bound at the hip.
so i guess you'd put single moms in the same category?
Not me. I actually think they should have all the same rights as hetero couples apart from what i mentioned earlier. And if they can't live without children they should adopt a child.
You sound
Divorce is not a conscious decision? And what's the difference anyway? Most marriages end in divorce as was already pointed out.
Oh, BAN that Dolo yeung piece of shit.
Is anyone else confused by the inconsistency of this statement?
is 'hypocrisy,' the word you are looking for? its harsher, so i choose that one.
Yes, you are right. It is a concious decision. But what i meant was that when the parents have have a child, they assume they are going to be together to raise the child together. It's the same with death.
But gay couples know (but don't comprehend the consequences IMO) before-hand that they will raise their child without a mother or father.
Sorry if my english is confusing you.
Well, please let me know what's inconsistent/hypocrit. (if it's the word 'all' combined with 'apart', i can understand, but i meant 'all the other')
Side note: I would be against forcing any church into marrying anyone tho.
State sanctioned marriage is a state conferred benefit. If you are to oppose it on grounds of equality then to be consistent youd have to declare social security ageist and denounce food stamps for discriminating against the employed. The inequality argument becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that the the only real reason marriage laws exist in the first place are to ensure this is the case ie. prevent such unions which the majority(or current ruling political class) doesnt approve of
A stronger position would be to argue against any state involvement in the institution of marriage at all
well no shit, i don't think anyone is advocating that.
so if someone has say cancer, or some other terminal illness they shouldn't be allowed to have a child? What if they're crippled? Are they allowed to have a kid or will they rob them of the full parenting experience?
Sounds like you care.
That's a real good question which i have never thought about. But i have to say, if the disease is really terminal (within a couple of years) they shouldnt do it. But there is no way i can refuse them to do it. Same with gay couples by the way.
Please be serious.
Ive always cared about debunking sophistry for whatever ends it is employed.
So you don't care if gay marriage was legalized by your government and in your society?
Dolo, suckle my testicles.
Start with yourself rather than people better informed and less wingnutty than you, then. Crawl before you ball.