Democrat presidential candidates patronize the gay community.

[Stinger]

I also challenge the assertion that marriage is only about families and children.

It is the prime function.

 

[craigfarmer]

I'm a proud Democrat who will vote for whichever nominee is produced in the Presidential race. This doesn't lessen my sadness however, that I as are millions of other Democrats abhor the Party's obsession with trying to appease the gay rights movement and agenda. It bothers me and most normal Americans that all of the candidates pretty much support the gay rights agenda and there's no diversity. This on issues where majorities of Americans support normal family values.

It is tantamount to hate-speech to say "it's not ok to be gay". "I think some people choose to live a homosexual lifestyle".

People have been brainwashed into thinking that is equivalent to being anti-black, etc.

that is ridiculous.

Left wing conservatives in Hollywood and elsewhere have spent generations bullying people into silence, tolerance, and now agreement on their flawed ideas. So much so, the gay rights lobby won't allow fair and open debates, but rather chooses to attempt to control people's minds through cultural nazism.

I disagree.

We as a people through our government have a right to define what is right/wrong; normal/abnormal; o.k./taboo; etc.

Often-times I might disagree with what our society decides, yet

Everything is not subjective where what's right to me can be wrong to you. Some things are objective within the society, and we have a right as a culture to advocate it.

For instance, I accept that most people abhor dog-fighting, whereas I don't see a material difference between THAT and HUNTING bears or other animals.

I have the right to try to change people's opinion that dog-fighting is equally bad as hunting and other harm we bring to animals and should be treated the same. But if I fail, I shouldn't go on a negative campaign to accuse people of being bigots, and try to control the textbooks, entertainment in a stealth manner, etc. I should try to honestly convince people I'm right.


I challenge anyone to name a mainstream t.v. show that doesn't implicitly or explicitly promote "gay is ok". Either in tone, in the characters, in the jokes, in the script, etc. Look at all of the "gender bender" commercial characters that blur the lines between male and female; and masculine and feminine characteristics.

I would support any major Democratic candidate who stood up for mainstream American values. That it was not only desirable, but right, and normal to have 1 man, 1 woman, and a nuclear family. While I'm at it, support marriage and make divorce tougher; if not take away some of the benefits of marriage if people won't treat it sacred.

Democrats do patronize the gay rights crowd because they are trying to show sympathy without losing voters like me. I wish they would put America first.

It reminds me of Dennis Kucinth, who has 0 (zero) chance of winning, switching from pro-life to pro-choice.

BTW, if a gay person should have the right to "love" anyone they want just like me, then what about:

1. a Dad marrying his adult son?
2. a grandmother marrying her grand-daughter?

It's all wrong, and we should say it.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

 

[rivrrat]

As I said if you want to take the position that little boys don't need daddies and little girls don't need mommies. That fathers and mothers aren't important necessary roles in children's lives, I am more than happy to let you espouse that notion because it diminishes your further arguments on the subject.

You use the words "need" and "necessary", which completely ignores all of the single parent families. Do explain to me how a child is raised by a single parent when they "need" a second one and that second one is "necessary".

The fact remains most of us do believe that children deserve every chance to have a mother and a father and that purposely denying children a mother and a father in order to satisfy the wants of the adult is wrong and that is a key issue with gay marriage.

No, it's not a key issue with gay marriage. Because couples (ANY couples) can have children outside of marriage, therefore it's irrelevant to the marriage discussion.

 

[Voidwar]

You use the words "need" and "necessary", which completely ignores all of the single parent families.

He does not ignore them.
He calls them out as less than ideal, which they are, period.

You can get a kid raised as a single parent, but you are doing it the hard way, and you will be "improvising" in finding an adult role model for the gender that is missing.

 

[Stinger]

You use the words "need" and "necessary", which completely ignores all of the single parent families.

Not at all, is is very sad when a parent dies or a family breaks up because the parents can't put their own differences aside, we used to call it a tragedy. It is very sad that the children will be minus a father or a mother in their lives. It is especially sad when that mother or father is PURPOSELY denied the child by an adult who believes their own wants and desires outweighs the childs right to and need for both a mother and a father.

Do explain to me how a child is raised by a single parent when they "need" a second one and that second one is "necessary".

Tell me which isn't necessary to a little boy, his father or his mother? Which has no unique role or influence in his life?

Do you understand that each brings a unique individual role to the rearing of a child?

Because couples (ANY couples) can have children outside of marriage, therefore it's irrelevant to the marriage discussion.

That they can doesn't make it irrelevant at all and society should never support of policy of children outside of a marriage because of it.

As I said, I am more than pleased to let you espouse the notion that mothers and fathers are not each unique and important to the raising of a child. We will judge your other opinions based on that one.

 

[Stinger]

He does not ignore them.
He calls them out as less than ideal, which they are, period.

You can get a kid raised as a single parent, but you are doing it the hard way, and you will be "improvising" in finding an adult role model for the gender that is missing.

It's the idea that someone would purposely deny a child their right to a mother and a father that is so absurd. That some in society celebrate the latest Hollywood actress because she gets herself impregnated so that she can have her baby without being married to the father so that that father is there to take on his IMPORTANT role in that child's life. That some even tout them as "brave" because they are going to face the "hurdles". It has to be one of the most selfish acts a person could commit.

 

[Kandahar]

As I said, I am more than pleased to let you espouse the notion that mothers and fathers are not each unique and important to the raising of a child. We will judge your other opinions based on that one.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. You're just going to keep spewing nonsense with nothing to back it up, as an article of faith. :roll:

Parenting matters surprisingly little, at least in a positive sense. BAD parenting can affect a child's personality, but aside from that, the gender/number/parenting style of a child's parents has little affect on how the child turns out.

Most of our "nurture" comes from our peers, not our parents. And who we ARE (our nature) matters much more than even peer influence.

 

[Navy Pride]

Given the fact that so many children are and have been raised in single parent homes, your assertion that children need "mommies and daddies" is not based in reality.

The ideal environment for a child growing up is with a mother and father......That is not to say a lesbian couple can not raise a child successfully..........

 

[disneydude]

It's the idea that someone would purposely deny a child their right to a mother and a father that is so absurd. That some in society celebrate the latest Hollywood actress because she gets herself impregnated so that she can have her baby without being married to the father so that that father is there to take on his IMPORTANT role in that child's life. That some even tout them as "brave" because they are going to face the "hurdles". It has to be one of the most selfish acts a person could commit.

Here we go again........so a heterosexual M/F couple choosing to have a child is "Noble"....a gay couple or a single parent choosing to do the same is/are "selfish".......:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

Here we go again........so a heterosexual M/F couple choosing to have a child is "Noble"....a gay couple or a single parent choosing to do the same is/are "selfish".......:roll:

How about thinking about the welfare of the child for a minute instead of the huge ego of the gay couple...thanks......

 

[disneydude]

How about thinking about the welfare of the child for a minute instead of the huge ego of the gay couple...thanks......

I think about the welfare of the child all the time. I just find it ignorant and flippant to suggest that gay people and/or single parents are selfish....where M/F Heterosexuals are noble.

The bottom line - there is a degree of selfishness and selflessness ANYTIME a person decides to bring a child into this world.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think about the welfare of the child all the time. I just find it ignorant and flippant to suggest that gay people and/or single parents are selfish....where M/F Heterosexuals are noble.

The bottom line - there is a degree of selfishness and selflessness ANYTIME a person decides to bring a child into this world.

I said a Lesbian couple could raise a child bu that is not the ideal environment to do it........Of course there are exceptions to every rule........

 

[disneydude]

I said a Lesbian couple could raise a child bu that is not the ideal environment to do it........Of course there are exceptions to every rule........

Im not saying that you didn't...I was actually impressed that you acknowledge that a Lesbian couple could be good parents....I'm a little confused if you are saying that a gay male couple couldn't be.......

 

[Kandahar]

I said a Lesbian couple could raise a child bu that is not the ideal environment to do it........Of course there are exceptions to every rule........

And what criteria have you used to determine what "the ideal environment" is? I consider it less than ideal to bring a child into a household with less than a million dollars in annual income. So do working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and most upper-class individuals have "huge egos" when they choose to have children? Should the government prevent them from having children?

 

[Stinger]

In other words, you have no rebuttal. You're just going to keep spewing nonsense with nothing to back it up, as an article of faith. :roll:

I am more than happy to let you espouse the notion that the importance of mothers and fathers and the unique roles they play in a child's life is "nonsense" as you put it. That does more to further my cause for children than I could ever do.

Parenting matters surprisingly little,

Just keep saying those things

Most of our "nurture" comes from our peers, not our parents.

In your dreams.

 

[Stinger]

Here we go again........so a heterosexual M/F couple choosing to have a child is "Noble"....a gay couple or a single parent choosing to do the same is/are "selfish".......:roll:

Purposely denying the child a mother or a father because they believe their own wants outweigh the rights of the child, you betcha.

 

[Stinger]

And what criteria have you used to determine what "the ideal environment" is?

You need criteria to tell you that little boys need daddies? Geez...............

 

[Stinger]

I think about the welfare of the child all the time. I just find it ignorant and flippant to suggest that gay people and/or single parents are selfish....where M/F Heterosexuals are noble.

I find it even more ignorant and flippant that anyone homosexual or heterosexual would put their own self interest before that of the child and purposely deny them a mother or a father. YOU think it's just a homosexual issue, it's not.

 

[Kandahar]

I am more than happy to let you espouse the notion that the importance of mothers and fathers and the unique roles they play in a child's life is "nonsense" as you put it. That does more to further my cause for children than I could ever do.



Just keep saying those things




In your dreams.

You need criteria to tell you that little boys need daddies? Geez...............

So you don't have any logic to back up your statements. You've just decided they're true, as articles of faith.

 

[Stinger]

And what criteria have you used to determine what "the ideal environment" is?

How about we start with a mommy and a daddy? So that the little boy has a father to teach him fatherly things and a mother to teach him motherly things or so that a little girl has a mother to teach her all the important things that mothers teach their little girls and are able to teach their young sons all the things mothers teach little boys.

Are you seriously going to take the position that men can teach little girls all the things about being a woman or that a woman can substitute for a daddy?

 

[Kandahar]

I find it even more ignorant and flippant that anyone homosexual or heterosexual would put their own self interest before that of the child and purposely deny them a mother or a father. YOU think it's just a homosexual issue, it's not.

And I find it ignorant that any non-millionaire would put their own self-interest before that of the child, and purposely deny them access to the best of everything that life has to offer. :roll:

****ing selfish bastards who want children, despite only pulling in $250K per year. :lol:

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
I am more than happy to let you espouse the notion that the importance of mothers and fathers and the unique roles they play in a child's life is "nonsense" as you put it. That does more to further my cause for children than I could ever do.



Just keep saying those things




In your dreams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
You need criteria to tell you that little boys need daddies? Geez...............

So you don't have any logic to back up your statements. You've just decided they're true, as articles of faith.

So you've decided they aren't? Like I said the more you repeat that nonsense the less credence will be given to the rest of your arguments.

In fact why don't YOU rebut what I posted, give me the logic that says little girls don't need mommies.

 

[Kandahar]

How about we start with a mommy and a daddy? So that the little boy has a father to teach him fatherly things and a mother to teach him motherly things or so that a little girl has a mother to teach her all the important things that mothers teach their little girls and are able to teach their young sons all the things mothers teach little boys.

Are you seriously going to take the position that men can teach little girls all the things about being a woman or that a woman can substitute for a daddy?

Umm what exactly are you concerned that men couldn't teach girls, or women couldn't teach boys?

 

[Stinger]

And I find it ignorant that any non-millionaire would put their own self-interest before that of the child, and purposely deny them access to the best of everything that life has to offer. :roll:

What does the amount of money, although it is irresponsible to bring a child into this world if you can't afford the necessities of life that child will require, have to do with whether a mommy or daddy is there? How does that mitigate someone purposely creating a child and denying that child a mother and a father?

Explain that leap in logic?

How many children have you raised BTW?

 

[Stinger]

Umm what exactly are you concerned that men couldn't teach girls, or women couldn't teach boys?

How many children have you raised?