Mom and Dad banned in California schools, offends gays. - Page 30

A_Wise_Fool · 10-17-07, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Then you show me where supremacy is the goal of the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, your opinion is just that...an opinion. It alone does not qualify as anything more than its own polar opposite.

Equality BEFORE THE LAW is the goal of the constitution my friend. Discouraging bad social behavior through reprimation by civil punishment is clearly defined as being equal before every citizen. However, encouragment of good social behavior is never defined in the Constitution as being equal to all behavior or catering to the supreme behavior.

Part of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

Quote:

FROM WIKI:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

As you can see the closest resemblence of this issue in the Constitution, that I can find, does not DISALLOW for promotion of certain privileges over others, only disallows the discouragement of privilages by making them illegal. Also, the meaning of privileges here is disputable to mean only laws currently in existence; not "getting your feelings hurt" if the Government does not encourage your idealogies. In other words, a privilage seems to be a law and "equal prmotion" is not a law.

As you can now see this is no longer my opinion. . . Why can the Government not encourage certain marital institutions over others while not forcing them upon citizens??? What is wrong with equally elaborating on all marital institutions but also show statistical trends and make objective conclusions as to which is best and then teach it in public schools??

Stinger · 10-17-07, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

What don't you understand about a gay couple's EQUAL ability to raise children? I can post transcripts and studies as well.

Nope it denies the child the mother or father so important to a child, go back and read the transcript I posted.

Stinger · 10-17-07, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

You are conveniently taking out of context what Dr. Poussaint was talking about. He wasn't asked about two moms or two dads.

It wasn't me who turned it into JUST a discussion of homosexual parenting. I was perfectly clear, no child should be denied their right parentage whatever the "arraignment". I am totally against single women being allowed to use artificial means to impregnate themselves so they can satisfy their own selfish interest. It's the knee jerk defending of homosexuality that turned into a single issue discussion.

The the ends are the same.

Quote:

He was juxtaposing single parent homes versus two parent homes.

He was talking about young boys not having a father in thier life, the result of a single mother or a lesbian couple.

Quote:

Gender wasn't the issue. He was speaking in the context of black men not taking care of their children and leaving one person to raise the children.

No he didn't say one person, he said without a father.

Quote:

So now you are going to deny being a homophobe.

And if you are going to engage in name calling in you can stick it.

Simon W. Moon · 10-18-07, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Ooooh the "gotcha moment!"

So that explains it, you choose to live in a non-traditional system and it bothers you that kids are taught mom''s and dad's are parts of a family!

That explains your anger and hate.

PS Nice dodge on the "What gives you the right"

Datsa pritty funny.
;)

Simon W. Moon · 10-18-07, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

Oh, this is some pathetic

This is NOT what SB777 says at all. This, above, just hysterical bs from a typical 'family values' bigoted organization.

If you really want to read what SB777 says, here is the bill:
SB 777 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

YAY!!!

It only took almost 90posts before someone thought to google the bill itself.

Thank you CC.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who is interested in genuine debate.

rhinefire · 10-18-07, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

And was there any point to this idiotic drivel? Thought not.

Offered by the only real authority on idiotic drivel.

The silenced majority · 10-18-07, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

YAY!!!

It only took almost 90posts before someone thought to google the bill itself.

Thank you CC.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who is interested in genuine debate.

keep readin' sporto!

Simon W. Moon · 10-18-07, 12:08 PM

Undoubtedly and incontrovertibly this bill will inevitably lead to the invasion of California by Nazis on dinosaurs. I mean it's not in this bill, but it's inarguably coming. That's how this conspiracy works. They start off with something simple and hard to argue against so you have to make up some **** that they're gonna do later when no one's looking.

new coup for you · 10-18-07, 12:08 PM

hilarious, well done.

The silenced majority · 10-18-07, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

Undoubtedly and incontrovertibly this bill will inevitably lead to the invasion of California by Nazis on dinosaurs. I mean it's not in this bill, but it's inarguably coming. That's how this conspiracy works. They start off with something simple and hard to argue against so you have to make up some **** that they're gonna do later when no one's looking.

This entire bill is prefaced on a slippery slope.- "If we don't stop the structural discrimination that we can't really prove is happening in the California schools; then the structural discrimination in the California schools that we can't prove is happening will continue.

Way to be a fake pseudo-conservative and call me a Nazi.