xpanda - homosexuals don't bother me, but the homosexual agenda does. We could both argue our points til we're blue in the face and neither one would change - these are our feelings and our rights to feel as we do.
What bothers me is the instant reach for such words as fascism every time someone mentions censorship. I believe that neither extreme is good - either no censorship at all, or to much censorship. I know that there's a happy median where most people on both sides of the issue can agree - some things are acceptable and some are not - especially where young people are concerned.
Way back when, there were 6 or 7 words that weren't acceptable in any broadcast or movie context. Why not have something like that. - it hurts no one and it does bring a measure of acceptability and trust back to society.
I don't need to see someones ass or head waving and bobbing in the air to understand that they're having, or just had sex - why not have a stricter rating system for the movies and have none of it on TV, except channels that are cleared to have it and can be turned off by parents.
If we work together and avoid extremism, we can both have what we want with minimal bother.
What bothers me is the instant reach for such words as fascism every time someone mentions censorship. I believe that neither extreme is good - either no censorship at all, or to much censorship. I know that there's a happy median where most people on both sides of the issue can agree - some things are acceptable and some are not - especially where young people are concerned.
Way back when, there were 6 or 7 words that weren't acceptable in any broadcast or movie context. Why not have something like that. - it hurts no one and it does bring a measure of acceptability and trust back to society.
I don't need to see someones ass or head waving and bobbing in the air to understand that they're having, or just had sex - why not have a stricter rating system for the movies and have none of it on TV, except channels that are cleared to have it and can be turned off by parents.
If we work together and avoid extremism, we can both have what we want with minimal bother.
Blight: what exactly, in your words, is the 'homosexual agenda?'
Censorship is one thing. Censorship under the guise of protecting 'us' from 'them' via distorted nationalism -- the creation of a uniform culture that completely ignores individualism and acts as though there is some fairy-tale time and place where 'we were all as one' -- is entirely another. Further, the describing of this 'counter-culture' as an 'attack on us' promotes an irrational subset of fear.
This, my love, is a characteristic of fascism.
Because I understand how offensive this is, if this were the only characteristic present, I wouldn't use the term. But it's not, so I do.
Have a read:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
It's a very simplified model, but even this cursory review of fascism has to make you wonder.
Censorship is one thing. Censorship under the guise of protecting 'us' from 'them' via distorted nationalism -- the creation of a uniform culture that completely ignores individualism and acts as though there is some fairy-tale time and place where 'we were all as one' -- is entirely another. Further, the describing of this 'counter-culture' as an 'attack on us' promotes an irrational subset of fear.
This, my love, is a characteristic of fascism.
Because I understand how offensive this is, if this were the only characteristic present, I wouldn't use the term. But it's not, so I do.
Have a read:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
It's a very simplified model, but even this cursory review of fascism has to make you wonder.
What is the "Homosexual" agenda???
Hmm, lets see ... the Repubs get upset when Kerry mentions Cheneys Lesbo daughter .. yet, Cheney and his phony ass wife are talking about her on a stage in Iowa 2 weeks earlier???
The Repubs touted "we are the party of Morals" yet Bush supports Same Sex Unions?
And Bush did use the Homosexual agenda to win the 94 TX Gov race when he spread rumors about Anne Richards ...
You tell me ....
Hmm, lets see ... the Repubs get upset when Kerry mentions Cheneys Lesbo daughter .. yet, Cheney and his phony ass wife are talking about her on a stage in Iowa 2 weeks earlier???
The Repubs touted "we are the party of Morals" yet Bush supports Same Sex Unions?
And Bush did use the Homosexual agenda to win the 94 TX Gov race when he spread rumors about Anne Richards ...
You tell me ....
"homosexuals don't bother me, but the homosexual agenda does"
When the battle was the right to vote for women was that the female agenda?
When the battle was to end segregation was that the black agenda?
The problem with censorship is that what is decent and what is obscene is subjective so who would we trust to set the boundries. Personally I'd rather have the freedom to decide for myself.
When the battle was the right to vote for women was that the female agenda?
When the battle was to end segregation was that the black agenda?
The problem with censorship is that what is decent and what is obscene is subjective so who would we trust to set the boundries. Personally I'd rather have the freedom to decide for myself.
heres some good outside the box thinking:
I used to hate gay marriage. when it got announced in my state as something legal it ticked me the hell off.
I think differently now. I say let them get married, theyre identified more easily. I can point to them and say 'they are married gay folk' and i can use that as an example. It's easier to say you don't wanna be them. any border line curiousity gets instantly dispelled. the secrets are out let the fags get married. theyre grouped we can tax them and whatever.
the only real contradiction to what im saying is that mass has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
the governing here is on point
I used to hate gay marriage. when it got announced in my state as something legal it ticked me the hell off.
I think differently now. I say let them get married, theyre identified more easily. I can point to them and say 'they are married gay folk' and i can use that as an example. It's easier to say you don't wanna be them. any border line curiousity gets instantly dispelled. the secrets are out let the fags get married. theyre grouped we can tax them and whatever.
the only real contradiction to what im saying is that mass has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
the governing here is on point
The homosexual agenda is a full frontal assault to force acceptance of all things homosexual down our cultural throats (pardon the pun).
Marriage is a natural pact between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation among other things.
Homosexuals can't procreate. A homosexual man can never be a mother - no matter how hard HE tries. A homosexual woman can never be a father, no matter how hard SHE tries.
A homosexual mother and father are not the norm, and shouldn't be presented as though they are the norm.
Pediphiles will use the homosexual name as a cover to gain access to children. They did this in the Catholic Church and it worked quite well for them.
I'll agree that homosexuals should have all of the benefits of marriage - but not marriage itself; let them have a civil union if they want.
I'll agree that homosexuals can be adoptive or foster parents - after they've been married to each other for at least 5 years and if they agree to allow the child periodic counselling (to make sure that the child is not being subjected to any abuses).
You can be PC about this, or you can be realistic. What is it - 9 states that have already rejected homosexual marriage? You can pout and call people all of the names you want, but most if not all parents will reject this for just the reasons I named above.
I'm sure that Doc will be as poisonous about this as he is about everything else, but common sense will tell you that it's a no win situation.
Marriage is a natural pact between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation among other things.
Homosexuals can't procreate. A homosexual man can never be a mother - no matter how hard HE tries. A homosexual woman can never be a father, no matter how hard SHE tries.
A homosexual mother and father are not the norm, and shouldn't be presented as though they are the norm.
Pediphiles will use the homosexual name as a cover to gain access to children. They did this in the Catholic Church and it worked quite well for them.
I'll agree that homosexuals should have all of the benefits of marriage - but not marriage itself; let them have a civil union if they want.
I'll agree that homosexuals can be adoptive or foster parents - after they've been married to each other for at least 5 years and if they agree to allow the child periodic counselling (to make sure that the child is not being subjected to any abuses).
You can be PC about this, or you can be realistic. What is it - 9 states that have already rejected homosexual marriage? You can pout and call people all of the names you want, but most if not all parents will reject this for just the reasons I named above.
I'm sure that Doc will be as poisonous about this as he is about everything else, but common sense will tell you that it's a no win situation.
Rob, you're right that Mass does have the lowest national divorce rate.
The one stat they never print is the marriage rate - where does Mass stand on that graph?
Also, the number of single parent households?
And while we're at it, the number of single parent children that are in foster care.
The one stat they never print is the marriage rate - where does Mass stand on that graph?
Also, the number of single parent households?
And while we're at it, the number of single parent children that are in foster care.
freakn BB why do you care what the marriage rate is do you want to see 2 people hitch unless its actually going to work? if anything it shows marriage is sacred here
single parent foster child at least we have the means to make it work for those folk here.
do you give that same scenario a better shot in alabama?!
single parent foster child at least we have the means to make it work for those folk here.
do you give that same scenario a better shot in alabama?!
bblight said:
Pun forgiven.
You're not forced to 'accept' anything, Blight. Which is rather my point. You see, you can ignore the whole thing. You are free to not attend a single gay wedding, you are free to cross the street if you see a gay couple holding hands, you are certainly free to not marry another man if you so choose. You are not being forced into anything at all. They are only asking for the same rights and priviledges the rest of us enjoy.
I know it's not exactly the same, but there was a time in US history when it was illegal for people of different races to get married. I'll bet the arguments were the same at the time. Nowadays, who gives a shît?
Actually, that's not what it is. (Marriage is certainly not 'natural.') But this is an entirely different discussion. Simply put, marriage was the way that a man guaranteed paternity of his children and the ability to pass his property on to them. People can certainly procreate without marriage.
Even if marriage were for the sole purpose of procreation, what would you say to all those (intentionally) childless couples out there? Are they sacriledge?
Unless they have been 'fixed' they most certainly can procreate.
A heterosexual man can never be a mother, either. A heterosexual woman can never be a father, either. But they can get married to one another.
Since estimates have the homosexual population at 7-10% of society, they will never be the norm whether they marry or not.
Having been raised Catholic, I can assure you that homosexuality is not acceptable to the Church. There is no way that priests would pretend to be gay to hide the fact that they're pedophiles. After all, the vow of celibacy extends to gays and heteros in the priesthood.
I will dig this up for you in a moment, but I read this article from some religious think-tank type thing that claimed that roughly 20% of pedophiles were homosexual. Twenty percent!!!
Except that means, ipso facto, that eighty percent of pedophiles were heterosexual.
I don't understand this reasoning. It has to be a religious thing. I really don't get it.
The Parent Police? What makes you think that a homosexual parent is more likely to abuse their children than a heterosexual parent? Further, what makes you think that the state has any right whatsoever to interfere with parenting? As a conservative, I am surprised you would say this.
And I would say that they are wrong. Over half of our provinces now have allowed gay marriage. Ontario was the first. Good for us.
Do the following statements sum up your views better, BB:
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behaviour.
Homosexuality is a choice, not something you're born with.
Homosexuality can be 'taught.'
Homosexuals want to recruit heterosexuals into their group.
These statements are the only way I can think of to justify your position. I, on the other hand, think one is born gay and that it is not deviant at all, but very 'normal' for them.
The only sex life I've ever given a crap about is my own. Life is much more pleasant when you live and let live, my friend.
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behaviour.
Homosexuality is a choice, not something you're born with.
Homosexuality can be 'taught.'
Homosexuals want to recruit heterosexuals into their group.
These statements are the only way I can think of to justify your position. I, on the other hand, think one is born gay and that it is not deviant at all, but very 'normal' for them.
The only sex life I've ever given a crap about is my own. Life is much more pleasant when you live and let live, my friend.
bblight said:
I write all that and you respond with 'No!' ?????
No, what???
Chew on this thought: my best friend and I are 35 and 34, respectively. We're completely, ridiculously single. These days, our clocks are making some serious noise.
But, we have a plan. In two or three years, all else being the same, we intend to hit the sperm bank, both get pregnant and raise our children together. We just bought a house together so part of it is already in place. Because I am self-employed and she works for her parent's company, we have a tremendous amount of flexibility. And, neither one of us is willing to marry some jackàss just for his sperm. We don't need the money, just the help. And, I trust her more than any other person on this planet to be with my child every day.
Now, neither of us is gay, but we are two women who will do this without men if necessary. (We have plenty of male friends between us so the kids would get the influence, though not daily.) There is a reasonable chance that other kids will think their parents are gay, or that the neighbours will think it and that our children will get teased about it.
Do you think that the state should have the right to force us to take our children to counselling? Do you think that, absent of men in our lives, we are more likely to abuse our children?
"I'll agree that homosexuals can be adoptive or foster parents - after they've been married to each other for at least 5 years and if they agree to allow the child periodic counselling (to make sure that the child is not being subjected to any abuses)."
Why the assumption that homosexual parents are more likely to abuse? I don't know if there is scientific evidence to back this premise but my guess is that those with suppressed latent tendencies much be a much higher risk to abuse.
XPanda wish you the best of luck being a parent is the most incredible experience you'll ever have, my daughter does something to make me so happy she brings tears to my eyes every couple of days (what a sentimental sap huh, lol, jk). I agree with Judge, from what I know of you here I think you'll be a great mom.
Not trying to sound like some chauvinistic a-hole, I do suggest that you consider one of those friends you mention or an uncle or the grandfather, etc to substitute as a father figure. Apparently, while I'm not one of these die hard traditionalists, it is important. My wife has a friend and college classmate that is a single mother. She suffers a series of disciplinary problems with her daughter that so far the shrinks have attributed to the lack of a father figure. It's gotten to the point where we don't really even like them to visit because she's been violent towards my daughter on a couple of occasions in what seems to be jealousy of me.
Why the assumption that homosexual parents are more likely to abuse? I don't know if there is scientific evidence to back this premise but my guess is that those with suppressed latent tendencies much be a much higher risk to abuse.
XPanda wish you the best of luck being a parent is the most incredible experience you'll ever have, my daughter does something to make me so happy she brings tears to my eyes every couple of days (what a sentimental sap huh, lol, jk). I agree with Judge, from what I know of you here I think you'll be a great mom.
Not trying to sound like some chauvinistic a-hole, I do suggest that you consider one of those friends you mention or an uncle or the grandfather, etc to substitute as a father figure. Apparently, while I'm not one of these die hard traditionalists, it is important. My wife has a friend and college classmate that is a single mother. She suffers a series of disciplinary problems with her daughter that so far the shrinks have attributed to the lack of a father figure. It's gotten to the point where we don't really even like them to visit because she's been violent towards my daughter on a couple of occasions in what seems to be jealousy of me.
X - I didn't consider biological children in my string - and I didn't mean anything as an insult - I have two daughters of my own on both sides of 30 - and they have their own minds and their own lives to live. Although I feel very strongly about bastardy - the child carries the shame while the parent shrugs off the blame! ou migfht want to remember that - especially if you have a boy!
I guess the best way to put it is to quote Madonna from a very recent interview; Madonna was asked if she would approve of her daughter marching around a stage in her underwear - after a bit of hemming and hawinfg, Madonna said "No", she wouldn't approve of it. The point is that after you have kids, you change the way you think - what was formerly acceptable, is no longer condoned.
The same thing goes for adult children - they're going to do whatever they're going to do - and all that you can do as a parent is accept it - because any sane parent would never cut one of his children out of his life - no matter what!
I guess the best way to put it is to quote Madonna from a very recent interview; Madonna was asked if she would approve of her daughter marching around a stage in her underwear - after a bit of hemming and hawinfg, Madonna said "No", she wouldn't approve of it. The point is that after you have kids, you change the way you think - what was formerly acceptable, is no longer condoned.
The same thing goes for adult children - they're going to do whatever they're going to do - and all that you can do as a parent is accept it - because any sane parent would never cut one of his children out of his life - no matter what!
Whether or not a flag is on fire
Whether or not a prayer is said in school
Who's getting married
Add to that list of worthless non-issues the thought of a book having gay references or characters. Gerald Allen has to get a life and quit blowing the taxpayers money on phobic causes like these.
This pursuing "the norm" is totally ignorant of the fact that people have thier own lives with thier own tastes, culture, and traditions. What is right for one person or persons may be vulgar for other people with different opinions about the way life should be lived.
Presenting the norm as some idyllic scene from "Leave it to Beaver" where the male goes to work and the mom stays home and takes care of the kids and everybody gets along with everybody else is just a tad bit outdated.......women can work and a number of them choose to do so of thier own volition.....hell, as much as it disappoints the old school tunnel visioners here, we also gave them the right to vote....
As others have already stated here, I will agree with those who have stated that they believe that xpanda will make a fine parent.....having read a considerable number of her postings I would trust her to raise kids properly and with tolerance towards other people more so than I would trust some of the bigots on this board whose life goal seems to be creating a master race with a strict set of rules and little choice with thier personal liberties....we need more open minded thinkers on this planet and less of the pinheads like Allen who feel the need to guide us down some narrow path and hold our hand while doing so.
Too many bigots and racists on this planet already.....if there was any personal responsibility left on the planet all this "blame the gun" mentality would disappear.....if there was any "live and let live" left in the world there wouldn't be planes flown into skyscrapers and people found hanging from trees because thier skin was a different color. Don't expect these behaviors to end anytime soon because there is always some parent out there teaching his children to hate certain people or groups on this planet or telling them that thier parents way of life is the only acceptable way of life there is.
Whether or not a prayer is said in school
Who's getting married
Add to that list of worthless non-issues the thought of a book having gay references or characters. Gerald Allen has to get a life and quit blowing the taxpayers money on phobic causes like these.
This pursuing "the norm" is totally ignorant of the fact that people have thier own lives with thier own tastes, culture, and traditions. What is right for one person or persons may be vulgar for other people with different opinions about the way life should be lived.
Presenting the norm as some idyllic scene from "Leave it to Beaver" where the male goes to work and the mom stays home and takes care of the kids and everybody gets along with everybody else is just a tad bit outdated.......women can work and a number of them choose to do so of thier own volition.....hell, as much as it disappoints the old school tunnel visioners here, we also gave them the right to vote....
As others have already stated here, I will agree with those who have stated that they believe that xpanda will make a fine parent.....having read a considerable number of her postings I would trust her to raise kids properly and with tolerance towards other people more so than I would trust some of the bigots on this board whose life goal seems to be creating a master race with a strict set of rules and little choice with thier personal liberties....we need more open minded thinkers on this planet and less of the pinheads like Allen who feel the need to guide us down some narrow path and hold our hand while doing so.
Too many bigots and racists on this planet already.....if there was any personal responsibility left on the planet all this "blame the gun" mentality would disappear.....if there was any "live and let live" left in the world there wouldn't be planes flown into skyscrapers and people found hanging from trees because thier skin was a different color. Don't expect these behaviors to end anytime soon because there is always some parent out there teaching his children to hate certain people or groups on this planet or telling them that thier parents way of life is the only acceptable way of life there is.
