[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: snip The redneck sends a kid to school who will pop a cap on a cat, and that kid is going to be a fly in the ointment of so many normal school activities that call for emotional sensitivity. That's a bigtime burden -- as a school teacher I was devastated by how much one single bad egg can ruin a classroom. Why make it possible to insert even more parent-warped kids into our culture? What? We've got to be fair and let the bad-gays send their twisted little freaks to school too? This may come as a shock to you, Edg, but allowing two men to marry and raise children will not result in *more* children than there would be otherwise, since two men can't, you know, reproduce. The children who would be raised by a male couple would have been raised by *somebody* if the male couple wasn't allowed to do so. And if the percentage of twisted children raised by gay male parents isn't any higher than the percentage of twisted children raised by hetero parents, then the effect of allowing a male couple to raise children in that regard would be nil: same percentage of twisted children either way. Note that I've left female couples out of this. If two women are allowed to raise children, there could well be more children than there would be otherwise, since one or both of the women could undergo artificial insemination. But your objections to same-sex marriage were couched exclusively in terms of the twisted children who would be raised by a male couple. And BTW, the current discussion was about same-sex marriage, not whether same-sex couples should be allowed to raise children. A same-sex couple can raise children, in most cases, whether they're married or not, or in a civil union or not (although in some states they're not allowed to legally adopt; and if the child they're raising is the issue of a previous union of one of the same-sex partners, the other partner in that previous union may be in a better position to challenge the custody rights of the same- sex couple). What you seem to be proposing, in other words, goes way beyond the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. You appear to be advocating a blanket prohibition on same-sex couples--but apparently only male couples--raising children. But as I noted, your argument falls apart if you're objecting to only male couples raising children, because such unions would not add to the population of twisted children. Your argument, in fact, makes sense only if you're referring to *female* couples who arrange to have a child who is the biological offspring of one of the partners. These are children who wouldn't exist were it not for the female couple deciding to have children, so they *would* add to the population of children. If you can make a case for some of the children of such unions being twisted, then you can say allowing female couples to raise children might increase the number of twisted children. How many twisted children, do you think, would this add, say, per year?
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
Judy, I could easily respond to your post, and the issue is important, and you have spotlit some nuances that need clarification, but you didn't react to my sincerely meant attempt to understand your meaning of the word empathy except to smack me gratuitously, and so, hey, you simply do not fucking deserve a response to your post below. In fact, let me openly declare that -- until you rejected my attempt to understand your usage -- I was in the mindset of Judy contributes here as much as Turq, but your recent fuck-you-Edg was the last straw, (meaning you've called me names time and time again) and, finally, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I now see that I was being way wrong whenever I was knee-jerkingly being an apologist for you here, and that, Turq, by a landslide, is far far more often a contributor of positivity here. Turq, I apologize for thinking otherwise. Not that you're not a odious clod, but that, despite your dark side, you can be counted on to frequently bring juicy stuff to the fore -- you stir our mix here. Judy, you are commonly, frequently, dedicatedly seen to try to stifle the dialogue here, and abusing the messenger is your common tool -- one that you cannot deny. So, just in case you're still reading, take your red pencil mind and scribble your way to hell. I'm as done with you as I am with Willy. I'd rather have interaction with Off, Shemp and Nab. Ta ta -- please keep having the life you're saying you have -- it seems a fitting punishment for what you are. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: snip The redneck sends a kid to school who will pop a cap on a cat, and that kid is going to be a fly in the ointment of so many normal school activities that call for emotional sensitivity. That's a bigtime burden -- as a school teacher I was devastated by how much one single bad egg can ruin a classroom. Why make it possible to insert even more parent-warped kids into our culture? What? We've got to be fair and let the bad-gays send their twisted little freaks to school too? This may come as a shock to you, Edg, but allowing two men to marry and raise children will not result in *more* children than there would be otherwise, since two men can't, you know, reproduce. The children who would be raised by a male couple would have been raised by *somebody* if the male couple wasn't allowed to do so. And if the percentage of twisted children raised by gay male parents isn't any higher than the percentage of twisted children raised by hetero parents, then the effect of allowing a male couple to raise children in that regard would be nil: same percentage of twisted children either way. Note that I've left female couples out of this. If two women are allowed to raise children, there could well be more children than there would be otherwise, since one or both of the women could undergo artificial insemination. But your objections to same-sex marriage were couched exclusively in terms of the twisted children who would be raised by a male couple. And BTW, the current discussion was about same-sex marriage, not whether same-sex couples should be allowed to raise children. A same-sex couple can raise children, in most cases, whether they're married or not, or in a civil union or not (although in some states they're not allowed to legally adopt; and if the child they're raising is the issue of a previous union of one of the same-sex partners, the other partner in that previous union may be in a better position to challenge the custody rights of the same- sex couple). What you seem to be proposing, in other words, goes way beyond the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. You appear to be advocating a blanket prohibition on same-sex couples--but apparently only male couples--raising children. But as I noted, your argument falls apart if you're objecting to only male couples raising children, because such unions would not add to the population of twisted children. Your argument, in fact, makes sense only if you're referring to *female* couples who arrange to have a child who is the biological offspring of one of the partners. These are children who wouldn't exist were it not for the female couple deciding to have children, so they *would* add to the population of children. If you can make a case for some of the children of such unions being twisted, then you can say allowing female couples to raise children might increase the number of twisted children. How many twisted children, do you think, would this add, say, per year?
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Judy, I could easily respond to your post, and the issue is important, and you have spotlit some nuances that need clarification, but you didn't react to my sincerely meant attempt to understand your meaning of the word empathy except to smack me gratuitously, Gratuitously?? Go back and read your most recent post demanding that I respond to your question about empathy, and then tell me my smack was gratuitous. Do you even know what gratuitous means? not called for by the circumstances : UNWARRANTED and so, hey, you simply do not fucking deserve a response to your post below. I couldn't care less whether you respond to what I pointed out regarding your argument against same-sex marriage. The issue is whether you feel your argument deserves a defense. It isn't me you're punishing if you don't provide one.
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
How many twisted children, do you think, would this add, say, per year? Duveyoung wrote: ...I'm as done with you as I am with Willy. Ed got his feelings hurt again by Judy! Poor Barry and Ed - they got waxed real good by Judy and Willy. They sound really scared now - what to do? I hope they don't start crying - it's really sad to see grown men cry.
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Alex Stanley wrote:Why should the government's legal recognition of committed couples, and all the secular benefits and protections that go with it, be denied certain individuals on the basis of superstitious beliefs? I'm totally cool with religious institutions being free to not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but I think the legal aspects of marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of gender. Alex, Where does it end? When will your sense of what's acceptable be thoroughly challenged? How much moral wiggle-room can you accept? I have not got clarity enough to answer my own question above, because my imagination can easily see future consequences, extremes that are possible, that will have me shuddering into a fetal position, because, to me, gay marriage must be considered for its impact on parenting. I'm not a parent, and I have zero interest in parenting, so this, for me, is an irrelevant tangent. The fact remains that legally recognized marriage confers legal benefits and protections that are not exclusively beneficial to parents. Here's just one example of this from my own life: My life partner of almost 22 years is a foreign national who was instantly able to get a green card by virtue of being a woman in a legally recognized relationship with me. If my partner were a male foreign national, we'd be SOL in that regard. For me, this issue is primarily about unfair discrimination on the basis of gender.
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: [...] How many twisted children, do you think, would this add, say, per year? One of Tracy Ullman's recurring skits involved her as the 16-year-old daughter of a gay male couple. It was hilarious watching the two men trying to cope with the teenage daughter and her angst. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
---Metanoia --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Judy, I could easily respond to your post, and the issue is important, and you have spotlit some nuances that need clarification, but you didn't react to my sincerely meant attempt to understand your meaning of the word empathy except to smack me gratuitously, and so, hey, you simply do not fucking deserve a response to your post below. In fact, let me openly declare that -- until you rejected my attempt to understand your usage -- I was in the mindset of Judy contributes here as much as Turq, but your recent fuck-you-Edg was the last straw, (meaning you've called me names time and time again) and, finally, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I now see that I was being way wrong whenever I was knee-jerkingly being an apologist for you here, and that, Turq, by a landslide, is far far more often a contributor of positivity here. Turq, I apologize for thinking otherwise. Not that you're not a odious clod, but that, despite your dark side, you can be counted on to frequently bring juicy stuff to the fore -- you stir our mix here. Judy, you are commonly, frequently, dedicatedly seen to try to stifle the dialogue here, and abusing the messenger is your common tool -- one that you cannot deny. So, just in case you're still reading, take your red pencil mind and scribble your way to hell. I'm as done with you as I am with Willy. I'd rather have interaction with Off, Shemp and Nab. Ta ta -- please keep having the life you're saying you have -- it seems a fitting punishment for what you are. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Gay marriage and parenting -- who's got clarity? (Re: Iowa State Senator Becky)
Where does it end, Edg? It ends when a man marries a box turtle. It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife. -- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a prepared speech for the Heritage Foundation, but mistakenly delivered to the press. [http://craphound.com/images/boxturtlemarriage.jpg] http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/ http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Alex Stanley wrote:Why should the government's legal recognition of committed couples, and all the secular benefits and protections that go with it, be denied certain individuals on the basis of superstitious beliefs? I'm totally cool with religious institutions being free to not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but I think the legal aspects of marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of gender. Alex, Where does it end? When will your sense of what's acceptable be thoroughly challenged? How much moral wiggle-room can you accept?
