Mockingbird 0 #376 February 20, 2006 QuoteChildren will be forbidden to those in civil unions? I would hope so. The ideal family consists of a wife and a husband, living in fidelity and peace with one another. If you want to expand the concept, a loving wife and husband who are blessed with children is ideal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #377 February 20, 2006 Is there a way to make the font bigger here? No? okay then..... SIGH That will have to do.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #378 February 20, 2006 QuoteActual families have NEVER BEEN and WILL NEVER BE solely a mother, father, and a child. Sure there were extended families... grandparents or aunts, uncles, cousins, whatever living under the same roof. But I basically disagree with your assertiion that actual families have never been solely a mother, father, and a child. Go check out a genealogy site, Vercetti. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #379 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteActual families have NEVER BEEN and WILL NEVER BE solely a mother, father, and a child. Sure there were extended families... grandparents or aunts, uncles, cousins, whatever living under the same roof. But I basically disagree with your assertiion that actual families have never been solely a mother, father, and a child. Go check out a genealogy site, Vercetti. You misunderstand. But that is my fault. Poorly worded. I did not mean that there have never been families with a mother/father/children paradigm. Why would you even assume that anyone would pose something so outrageous? I know we don't agree on much, but come on, give me SOME credit at least. What I actually meant is that that structure (m/f/c) is not the ONLY family structure that has existed throughout time. It is, and always will be far more complex. Gay parents have existed throughout history and your desire to keep the word marriage as existing only for man and woman will not stop that. But, like I said, at least you save a word. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #380 February 20, 2006 QuoteJust wait for for the response billvon... It will be something like this: 1) out of context (even if they are absolutely clear in their wording) or 2) only applies to Jews -- or variations thereof Good for you, Vercetti; it's great to see you finally adopting a common-sense hermeneutic instead of reading isolated verses and using them to create, or affirm existing, misinterpretations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #381 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteChildren will be forbidden to those in civil unions? I would hope so. The ideal family consists of a wife and a husband, living in fidelity and peace with one another. If you want to expand the concept, a loving wife and husband who are blessed with children is ideal. How about a submissive-but-battered-anyway, born-again-Christian wife, an abusive and mentally-ill husband and two terrorized little kids who grew up all fucked-up as a result? Sound good to you? LJ's a handful, but if I were still young enough to need parents, I'd pick him and his husband hands down over what I had. Kids don't care much about their parents' sex lives, MB. Mostly they don't want to think their parents have sex, so the nature of the pairing isn't particularly relevant to the whole equation. Children need rational, thoughtful people who can give them consistency and order in a chaotic world. A gay couple at peace with themselves and each other is a whole lot better choice than some screwed up "natural" family unit where the kids have no idea what's coming next. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #382 February 20, 2006 QuoteHomosexuality in nature is a well documented fact, and cross species mating happens all the time. Yeah, but they don't adopt kids and ask to be considered a legitimate family and use my tax dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #383 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteChildren will be forbidden to those in civil unions? I would hope so. The ideal family consists of a wife and a husband, living in fidelity and peace with one another. If you want to expand the concept, a loving wife and husband who are blessed with children is ideal. I pitty you Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #384 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust wait for for the response billvon... It will be something like this: 1) out of context (even if they are absolutely clear in their wording) or 2) only applies to Jews -- or variations thereof Good for you, Vercetti; it's great to see you finally adopting a common-sense hermeneutic instead of reading isolated verses and using them to create, or affirm existing, misinterpretations. A condescending reply to a condescending post. Touche.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #385 February 20, 2006 QuoteSIGH The reaction is mutual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,033 #386 February 20, 2006 >Yeah, but they don't adopt kids and ask to be considered a legitimate >family and use my tax dollars. Right - currently only straight people can use your tax money in this way. Would you support a special tax on straight people to address this inequity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #387 February 20, 2006 QuoteWhy would you even assume that anyone would pose something so outrageous? In the same way that you find my statements outrageous. Sorry, I try NOT to take anything for granted. We all know how difficult it can be to communicate effectively without the benefit of hearing inflection, seeing a facial expression, and being able to interrupt for clarification. So I have to do the best I can at comprehending what you intend to say by reading exactly what you write. I know I have the same problem, so we just have to do the best we can to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #388 February 20, 2006 Quote>Yeah, but they don't adopt kids and ask to be considered a legitimate >family and use my tax dollars. Right - currently only straight people can use your tax money in this way. Would you support a special tax on straight people to address this inequity? You forgot to make it totally plain, bill: Gay (and single) tax dollars are being used to subsidize hetero families. Explain the fairness in that, MB. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #389 February 20, 2006 But I don't think any thing you have said is outrageous. Wishful thinking prehaps, but not outrageous. It is actually a pretty common belief so there would be no reason for me to find it shocking. Similiar to the idea that the 50's were better. That everyone then was Ward and June Cleaver. Its nice to imagine it, but it is just not true.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #390 February 20, 2006 QuoteWhat I actually meant is that that structure (m/f/c) is not the ONLY family structure that has existed throughout time. It is, and always will be far more complex. Gay parents have existed throughout history and your desire to keep the word marriage as existing only for man and woman will not stop that. Perhaps "gay parents have existed throughout history"--- you'd have to provide a source in order for the statement (because it is implying something rather extreme) to carry much weight-- but the percentage was too small to have much of a generalized effect one way or another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #391 February 20, 2006 QuoteKids don't care much about their parents' sex lives, MB. Mostly they don't want to think their parents have sex, so the nature of the pairing isn't particularly relevant to the whole equation. Are you speaking for all children? I cared. I cared when my father slept in the spare bedroom for a while. QuoteHow about a submissive-but-battered-anyway, born-again-Christian wife, an abusive and mentally-ill husband and two terrorized little kids who grew up all fucked-up as a result? Sound good to you? A dysfunctional family is never good, even if the parents are hetero. Many kids survive this type of family and are really great people, tho', contributing much to society and being wonderful parents themselves. It's likely true as well that some great people will survive a same-sex marriage "family." "Survivors" exist in great numbers and come from every possible background because of their inherent strength and the lovingkindness of God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #392 February 20, 2006 QuoteI pitty you And I'm sorry you feel that you should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #393 February 20, 2006 The words "fairness" and "taxes" are incongruent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #394 February 20, 2006 QuoteThe words "fairness" and "taxes" are incongruent. So it's okay with you that heteros get the benefit of gay tax dollars but not vice versa. Figures. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #395 February 20, 2006 QuoteLJ's a handful, but if I were still young enough to need parents, I'd pick him and his husband hands down over what I had. That's really sweet. Raist and I both had a happy smile over what you said. At this point we're convinced we're not ready to parent. Unlike oh so many het couples who just get pregnant, we're in an excellent position to wait until we both make a firm, considered decision to have kids. And that's just one way that kids from gay couples have a MAJOR advantage over the typical het parents. We don't make kids until we make a conscious decision to do so. Imagine how the world would be better if every child arrived that way. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #396 February 20, 2006 QuoteAre you speaking for all children? I cared. I cared when my father slept in the spare bedroom for a while. That has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with exactly what I was talking about: disruption in the household. Thank you for the additional example from your own experience. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #397 February 20, 2006 Don't you dare malign the 50s! As for parents being like Ward and June Cleaver.... UGH. Gag me, why don't you? Now, Alex and Donna Stone--- that's another story! Thinking back to my childhood tho', I do think that there were similarities between the 50s TV families with actual 1950s families. Granted, no houses were EVER that clean, and no mealtimes were EVER that peaceful, nor did mothers EVER have so much free time. But, still, there were plenty of similarities. But the point of this is that the structure you were pointing out (M/F/C) has always been prevalent... as is the preference for this prevalent family unit, as can be seen when it's put up for a vote on state ballots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,033 #398 February 20, 2006 > But the point of this is that the structure you were pointing out (M/F/C) >has always been prevalent... Well, so have same-race marriages. That does not mean that interracial marriages are inherently bad, just that they are more rare. And that's true even if interracial marriages have unusual stresses to deal with (which sadly they often do, due to bigotry and intolerance.) >as is the preference for this prevalent family unit, as can be seen when it's put up for a vote on state ballots. That was true of same-race marriages as well. When the Supreme Court made them legal, they were bucking popular opinion - and indeed the issue came up when they reversed a state court ruling on the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #399 February 20, 2006 QuoteThank you for the additional example from your own experience. You're welcome. I'm happy about the family I grew up in. It wasn't perfect-- none are-- but I can't feel sorry for myself, claim victimhood and blame my background for the problems I have. IOW, I consider myself extremely blessed. But then I have to look at others who didn't have the advantages of a happy childhood that I had and I truly admire them for overcoming the obstacles that I didn't have to overcome. Most of them are better people than I am. I think that God is gracious to ALL of us in some way or another--- in giving us the grace to overcome or in giving us the grace of a happy childhood. Quote That has nothing to do with sex Oh really? That's funny, 'cos I thought it did at the time. Oh well. I'm wrong again. What an ignorant child I was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mockingbird 0 #400 February 20, 2006 True. A racial-issue marriage and a sexual preference/orientation-issue marriage are not comparable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next Page 16 of 19 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Keith 0 #383 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteChildren will be forbidden to those in civil unions? I would hope so. The ideal family consists of a wife and a husband, living in fidelity and peace with one another. If you want to expand the concept, a loving wife and husband who are blessed with children is ideal. I pitty you Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #384 February 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust wait for for the response billvon... It will be something like this: 1) out of context (even if they are absolutely clear in their wording) or 2) only applies to Jews -- or variations thereof Good for you, Vercetti; it's great to see you finally adopting a common-sense hermeneutic instead of reading isolated verses and using them to create, or affirm existing, misinterpretations. A condescending reply to a condescending post. Touche.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #385 February 20, 2006 QuoteSIGH The reaction is mutual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,033 #386 February 20, 2006 >Yeah, but they don't adopt kids and ask to be considered a legitimate >family and use my tax dollars. Right - currently only straight people can use your tax money in this way. Would you support a special tax on straight people to address this inequity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #387 February 20, 2006 QuoteWhy would you even assume that anyone would pose something so outrageous? In the same way that you find my statements outrageous. Sorry, I try NOT to take anything for granted. We all know how difficult it can be to communicate effectively without the benefit of hearing inflection, seeing a facial expression, and being able to interrupt for clarification. So I have to do the best I can at comprehending what you intend to say by reading exactly what you write. I know I have the same problem, so we just have to do the best we can to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #388 February 20, 2006 Quote>Yeah, but they don't adopt kids and ask to be considered a legitimate >family and use my tax dollars. Right - currently only straight people can use your tax money in this way. Would you support a special tax on straight people to address this inequity? You forgot to make it totally plain, bill: Gay (and single) tax dollars are being used to subsidize hetero families. Explain the fairness in that, MB. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #389 February 20, 2006 But I don't think any thing you have said is outrageous. Wishful thinking prehaps, but not outrageous. It is actually a pretty common belief so there would be no reason for me to find it shocking. Similiar to the idea that the 50's were better. That everyone then was Ward and June Cleaver. Its nice to imagine it, but it is just not true.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #390 February 20, 2006 QuoteWhat I actually meant is that that structure (m/f/c) is not the ONLY family structure that has existed throughout time. It is, and always will be far more complex. Gay parents have existed throughout history and your desire to keep the word marriage as existing only for man and woman will not stop that. Perhaps "gay parents have existed throughout history"--- you'd have to provide a source in order for the statement (because it is implying something rather extreme) to carry much weight-- but the percentage was too small to have much of a generalized effect one way or another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #391 February 20, 2006 QuoteKids don't care much about their parents' sex lives, MB. Mostly they don't want to think their parents have sex, so the nature of the pairing isn't particularly relevant to the whole equation. Are you speaking for all children? I cared. I cared when my father slept in the spare bedroom for a while. QuoteHow about a submissive-but-battered-anyway, born-again-Christian wife, an abusive and mentally-ill husband and two terrorized little kids who grew up all fucked-up as a result? Sound good to you? A dysfunctional family is never good, even if the parents are hetero. Many kids survive this type of family and are really great people, tho', contributing much to society and being wonderful parents themselves. It's likely true as well that some great people will survive a same-sex marriage "family." "Survivors" exist in great numbers and come from every possible background because of their inherent strength and the lovingkindness of God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #392 February 20, 2006 QuoteI pitty you And I'm sorry you feel that you should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #393 February 20, 2006 The words "fairness" and "taxes" are incongruent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #394 February 20, 2006 QuoteThe words "fairness" and "taxes" are incongruent. So it's okay with you that heteros get the benefit of gay tax dollars but not vice versa. Figures. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #395 February 20, 2006 QuoteLJ's a handful, but if I were still young enough to need parents, I'd pick him and his husband hands down over what I had. That's really sweet. Raist and I both had a happy smile over what you said. At this point we're convinced we're not ready to parent. Unlike oh so many het couples who just get pregnant, we're in an excellent position to wait until we both make a firm, considered decision to have kids. And that's just one way that kids from gay couples have a MAJOR advantage over the typical het parents. We don't make kids until we make a conscious decision to do so. Imagine how the world would be better if every child arrived that way. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #396 February 20, 2006 QuoteAre you speaking for all children? I cared. I cared when my father slept in the spare bedroom for a while. That has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with exactly what I was talking about: disruption in the household. Thank you for the additional example from your own experience. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #397 February 20, 2006 Don't you dare malign the 50s! As for parents being like Ward and June Cleaver.... UGH. Gag me, why don't you? Now, Alex and Donna Stone--- that's another story! Thinking back to my childhood tho', I do think that there were similarities between the 50s TV families with actual 1950s families. Granted, no houses were EVER that clean, and no mealtimes were EVER that peaceful, nor did mothers EVER have so much free time. But, still, there were plenty of similarities. But the point of this is that the structure you were pointing out (M/F/C) has always been prevalent... as is the preference for this prevalent family unit, as can be seen when it's put up for a vote on state ballots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,033 #398 February 20, 2006 > But the point of this is that the structure you were pointing out (M/F/C) >has always been prevalent... Well, so have same-race marriages. That does not mean that interracial marriages are inherently bad, just that they are more rare. And that's true even if interracial marriages have unusual stresses to deal with (which sadly they often do, due to bigotry and intolerance.) >as is the preference for this prevalent family unit, as can be seen when it's put up for a vote on state ballots. That was true of same-race marriages as well. When the Supreme Court made them legal, they were bucking popular opinion - and indeed the issue came up when they reversed a state court ruling on the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #399 February 20, 2006 QuoteThank you for the additional example from your own experience. You're welcome. I'm happy about the family I grew up in. It wasn't perfect-- none are-- but I can't feel sorry for myself, claim victimhood and blame my background for the problems I have. IOW, I consider myself extremely blessed. But then I have to look at others who didn't have the advantages of a happy childhood that I had and I truly admire them for overcoming the obstacles that I didn't have to overcome. Most of them are better people than I am. I think that God is gracious to ALL of us in some way or another--- in giving us the grace to overcome or in giving us the grace of a happy childhood. Quote That has nothing to do with sex Oh really? That's funny, 'cos I thought it did at the time. Oh well. I'm wrong again. What an ignorant child I was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #400 February 20, 2006 True. A racial-issue marriage and a sexual preference/orientation-issue marriage are not comparable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
