Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Boise fan

Conservatives lose their minds over Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf

Again... I'll let you decide what side you think is most persuasive. 

 

It is super effective in showing how much better the 2 parent household is. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a category for "gay married, raised form birth" so it's tough to parse the data out given how few gay married couples with kids there are, they can be swallowed statistically by another cateogry easily..

 

It also suffers a reporting error in that children who have experienced a "traumatic event" tend to have been removed from their 2-parent household, making the 2-parent stats "better" and every other stat "worse" (and for the record I got that objection from text in the study itself, I didn't think of it). 

 

That foster parent stat is AWFUL :/ Thank you for the link but now I'm kinda bummed by that. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love anti-science Liberals.

How is asking for a study anti-science?

 

I get irate at jackasses who smugly assume they know what they're talking about. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay Marriage has been illegal as well.

Just because a law was on the books, doesn't mean it should be constitutional, right?

Why do you think it is moronic to suggest that the Polygamist desire to be legally married is somehow not related to the gay marriage struggle to be legally married?  I don't follow why you keep saying that these two are not related and that you don't want to have a discussion on it.

Simply put.... Do you not think that polygamists have a constitutional right to get married?  Why?  Why not?

The slippery slope metaphor is moronic.  It's always used by those who want to use fear and ignorance to whip up their base.  This is a case in point.

No polygamists do not have a constitutional right to get married.  Because polygamy is illegal. Specifically.  It's not illegal to be gay.  It is illegal to be married to more than one person.  Is this too difficult to grasp?  I'm not sure I follow the right's idea here.  Care to explain?  How is being married to more than one person the same as being married to a member of the same sex?

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

 

The slippery slope metaphor is moronic.  It's always used by those who want to use fear and ignorance to whip up their base.  This is a case in point.

No polygamists do not have a constitutional right to get married.  Because polygamy is illegal. Specifically.  It's not illegal to be gay.  It is illegal to be married to more than one person.  Is this too difficult to grasp?  I'm not sure I follow the right's idea here.  Care to explain?  How is being married to more than one person the same as being married to a member of the same sex?

 

Again... Why do you keep asserting that the fight for gay marriage rights is alright, but that any discussion of polygamy marriage rights is "moronic", especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision.  Seems like in light of the recent decision, it is a great time to discuss further expansion of who can get legally married.  That you categorically say that Polygamist marriage rights (just the mere discussion of them) is without any merit seems biased, closed minded, and unfair.

Again... who cares if Polygamist Marriage is illegal in some States.  We are talking about the Constitution, are we not?  Under the Constitution, everyone is guaranteed certain fundamental rights which can't be made "illegal" by any legislative branch.  Marriage is one of those rights (a fundamental right), and the Supreme Court said that Gay Marriage is included as well because it involves consenting adults who want to get married.  

Now.  Using their reasoning, what is wrong with people that have been around since the entire history of the world (Polygamists), who are consenting adults, want to get married?  So, do you think the Polygamists should be allowed to legally marry as well?

I don't like polyg marriage, but they probably can make the same exact argument that the gay marriage proponents made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again... Why do you keep asserting that the fight for gay marriage rights is alright, but that any discussion of polygamy marriage rights is "moronic", especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision.  Seems like in light of the recent decision, it is a great time to discuss further expansion of who can get legally married.  That you categorically say that Polygamist marriage rights (just the mere discussion of them) is without any merit seems biased, closed minded, and unfair.

Again... who cares if Polygamist Marriage is illegal in some States.  We are talking about the Constitution, are we not?  Under the Constitution, everyone is guaranteed certain fundamental rights which can't be made "illegal" buy any legislative branch.  Marriage is one of those rights (a fundamental right), and the Supreme Court said that Gay Marriage is included as well because it involves consenting adults who want to get married.  

Now.  Using their reasoning, what is wrong with people that have been around since the entire history of the world (Polygamists), who are consenting adults, want to get married?  So, do you think the Polygamists should be allowed to legally marry as well?

What part of the polygamy laws do you not understand?  It's illegal to be married to more than one person at the same time.  That would include same-sex marriages.  Same sex couples can't become polygamist same-sex marriages.

Drawing a comparison is self-serving nonsense that is right in line with the "They're going to want to marry their pet, or a horse or cow" mentality.  And don't forget some of the same talking heads used pedophilia as an example as well. 

Refusing to accept the fact that there is no comparison with granting homosexuals the same rights as non-homosexuals and allowing multiple partner marriages and marriages involving individuals too young to give consent, is your issue, not mine. 

I can't help you if you cannot discern the difference.  But I can and will point out the ridiculousness of those who try to draw a comparison. 

And I'll always roll my eyes whenever anyone uses "slippery slope" as a metaphor for anything political.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again... Why do you keep asserting that the fight for gay marriage rights is alright, but that any discussion of polygamy marriage rights is "moronic", especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision.  Seems like in light of the recent decision, it is a great time to discuss further expansion of who can get legally married.  That you categorically say that Polygamist marriage rights (just the mere discussion of them) is without any merit seems biased, closed minded, and unfair.

Again... who cares if Polygamist Marriage is illegal in some States.  We are talking about the Constitution, are we not?  Under the Constitution, everyone is guaranteed certain fundamental rights which can't be made "illegal" by any legislative branch.  Marriage is one of those rights (a fundamental right), and the Supreme Court said that Gay Marriage is included as well because it involves consenting adults who want to get married.  

Now.  Using their reasoning, what is wrong with people that have been around since the entire history of the world (Polygamists), who are consenting adults, want to get married?  So, do you think the Polygamists should be allowed to legally marry as well?

I don't like polyg marriage, but they probably can make the same exact argument that the gay marriage proponents made.

I'm pretty amateur, but I thought the ruling was that people get equal protection under the law. So, since a man is equal to a woman, then a man should be able to marry a man iff a man can marry a woman. However, a man marrying a woman is not equal to a man marrying two women (as two is greater than one) so the equal protection clause wouldn't apply. 

FWIW I don't really care if polygamy is legalized, maybe without the provision that parents can consent for their children to marry underage. It would be hard as hell to figure out divorce law for it. I figure it's rare enough it wouldn't affect me, it would be sorta like legalizing tank mounted railguns. It sound scary but who can really afford it anyway?!

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The " marriage as a social instrument for raising children" argument fell out the window long ago when the divorce rate neared 50%, when people became more and more conscious about not having kids, when married couples found out they couldn't have kids, etc.  It's just a pretty limiting argument and used in this particular context, dumb. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I say Polygamous family isn't healthy for a kid?

I'm simply surprised that those in favor of gay marriage (2 consulting adults, wanting the State to recognize their marriage), are now unwilling to extend that same liberty and right to polygamists. 

anyone who doesn't acknowledge that a polygamous family is phucked for a kid is an idiot.  Anyone not acknowledging that two gay parents is less than ideal is either ignorant of child rearing or dishonest.

could a given gay parent situation be better than a traditional one?  Of course.  But by that logic since a given teen mother could be better than a traditional married couple we shouldn't be spending billions to reduce teen pregnancy.

i do find childless millenials lecturing everyone else  on what constitutes a good child rearing environment somewhat amusing and irritating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone who doesn't acknowledge that a polygamous family is phucked for a kid is an idiot.  Anyone not acknowledging that two gay parents is less than ideal is either ignorant of child rearing or dishonest.

could a given gay parent situation be better than a traditional one?  Of course.  But by that logic since a given teen mother could be better than a traditional married couple we shouldn't be spending billions to reduce teen pregnancy.

i do find childless millenials lecturing everyone else  on what constitutes a good child rearing environment somewhat amusing and irritating.

I find this an ironic social conservative position to take.

You admit that there may be examples where one parent, or two gay parents, or even perhaps three parents, might be a better situation for kids than a traditional mother/father home ... But that we should defer to some social engineering construct where the state tells us what is the best situation to raise our children? 

What happened to small government, personal responsibility, freedom to raise one's children as they please, etc? Or is that argument only invoked when we are talking about immunization, education, religion, etc.? 

It seems to me that if I wanted to raise my child in a single family household because that is what I thought was best for her, or with another man, or another man and woman, that's my (and the mother's) prerogative, all else being equal (the kid is safe, healthy, etc.)

Why do you think it's your place to tell people how they should raise their children?

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is a disingenuous and ridiculous argument to make anyway, because as far as I know there is no law that says a gay couple can't raise children, even if they weren't allowed to get married.

In fact, with the exception of adoption rules or certain criminal restraints, I can't think of any laws whatsoever that dictates who should or shouldn't be allowed to have or raise children. 

You don't have to be very creative to think of the myriad living situations children may find themselves in that have little to nothing to do at all with the marital status of their biological parents and that are quite legal and acceptable. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this an ironic social conservative position to take.

You admit that there may be examples where one parent, or two gay parents, or even perhaps three parents, might be a better situation for kids than a traditional mother/father home ... But that we should defer to some social engineering construct where the state tells us what is the best situation to raise our children? 

What happened to small government, personal responsibility, freedom to raise one's children as they please, etc? Or is that argument only invoked when we are talking about immunization, education, religion, etc.? 

It seems to me that if I wanted to raise my child in a single family household because that is what I thought was best for her, or with another man, or another man and woman, that's my (and the mother's) prerogative, all else being equal (the kid is safe, healthy, etc.)

Why do you think it's your place to tell people how they should raise their children?

I find this an ironic social conservative position to take.

You admit that there may be examples where one parent, or two gay parents, or even perhaps three parents, might be a better situation for kids than a traditional mother/father home ... But that we should defer to some social engineering construct where the state tells us what is the best situation to raise our children? 

What happened to small government, personal responsibility, freedom to raise one's children as they please, etc? Or is that argument only invoked when we are talking about immunization, education, religion, etc.? 

It seems to me that if I wanted to raise my child in a single family household because that is what I thought was best for her, or with another man, or another man and woman, that's my (and the mother's) prerogative, all else being equal (the kid is safe, healthy, etc.)

Why do you think it's your place to tell people how they should raise their children?

Jesus mug, your upgrade makes it impossible to use this site on an iPhone.  It's comple shitty.

jwherb, if you are unable to get past the obvious reality that gay parents complicates a child's life. And that the child has no say in it, then you are too close minded to discuss this with.  Pretending that gender role models don't matter for kids or that it would be confusing for an adolescent to have gay parents is asinine.

we as a society judge how kids should be raised all the time.  Adrian Peterson is an example, efforts to reduce teen pregnancy is another, polygamy is another.  Acknowledging that gay parents isn't ideal for kids doesn't make one a bigot, it makes him honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i do find childless millenials lecturing everyone else  on what constitutes a good child rearing environment somewhat amusing and irritating.

They were reared recently. There's that.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were reared recently. There's that.

being a parent of a 19 month old and a millennial. I can honestly say childless Millennials don't know shyt about raising children. I had all sorts of opinions and thought I knew everything until I had a kid and reality made sure to punch me in the nuts with how little I knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't think a traditional marriage when working right isn't the best way to provide for the welfare of children is a total moron.

I might agree that a polyigamist family is probably a pretty good situation as well if no one is being exploited.  

But it is proven when any child is missing a mommy or a daddy they suffer.  There are thousands of studies that say so and none that say a second mommy or daddy can make up what the child is missing.  I fathered and raised two children who have their college degrees and are raising their own children.  I think I was a good dad but there is no way I could be a mom, or fill that role.  Being gay will not make you a better parent it will make you worse, you are basically mentally ill, you have a problem that although not dangerous to others is statistically deviant, more statistically abnormal then pedophilia or depression.   The only reason it isn't listed as a mental problem is because of made up research and political correctness. 

 

I am not against gay couples becoming parents and I am not against gay marriage but to even claim they are equal as parents is asinine.  

:blink:

Holy shit you are one ignorant, racist, sexist, bigoted asshole.  I always knew you were a projector.  But this is a new low even for you.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

Holy shit you are one ignorant, racist, sexist, bigoted asshole.  I always knew you were a projector.  But this is a new low even for you.

 

He's the typical disconnected wing nut - calls everyone else a racist etc despite his own tendencies and the overt racist activity by his beloved republican party - like those conservatives who rail against gays, then it comes out they are really gay themselves - hypocrisy personified 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole issue is so stinking stupid. All this is about scoring political points. The Gay/Lesbian/Transgender activists could just as easily go for pushing Civil Unions with equal protections under the law instead of calling it marriage because in effect it's the same thing. The marriage purists could take a step back and see how sacred their legal entity is with a failure rate of 50%. This is all about leverage and getting their own way without compromise on a simple problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...