Money Magazine's 100 Best Places to Live List---Looking Onward to 2008

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by in2dadark

Gay people should not raise children.

Why not, what's wrong with gay people raising children?

[cinz420]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Why not, what's wrong with gay people raising children?

Bring on the gays and let them raise as many kids as they want. Compared to the results of your typical low or high rent straight conservatives, I'll take what a gay family produces any day. Chances are good that their children will respect the lifestyles of others which is more than can be said of many straight people.
Who are we to judge love? If you've found it - let it flourish. It is so much better than hate. Gee whiz.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by in2dadark

Gay people should not raise children. So, hopefully when you said 'raise a family' you meant dogs and cats..?

While two pampered Siberian Huskies will hopefully be included in my "family" count, my main ambition in life is to adopt three children into a home of warmth and love from a home of neglect and abuse. I'm not going to involve myself into a whole "gay vs. anti-gay" type of debate on here, as if Yac closes this otherwise interesting thread due to "political controversy" I'll throw a tantrum, but someday you're going to have to concede to the fact that any loving home is better for a child as opposed to NO home at all. There are too many irresponsible STRAIGHT people running around pumping out kids at age 16, and if someone like me wants to provide a nice home for that child, then why object?

Too many of you heterosexuals do nothing but sit around and envision people like my partner and I in the bedroom, even though that is no more a part of our lives than it is for a typical straight couple. In2DaDark, I'd suggest you go see that new Adam Sandler movie, "Chuck and Larry," as it manages to draw attention to prejudice while still infusing enough humor to make the film captivating and interesting. Maybe then you'll change your ways.

[cljovan]

It is sad that someone looks at "gay" as being unworthy of creating love for the unloved. In general, Hetero families have created this society of: latch key kids, abuse, neglect, including our over flow of kids in social services and with out loving homes. There is not one group, or one way, or a set way that works. What works is: compassion, unconditional love, and a willingness to open oneself up to the possibility of healing the unloved. That is the future. I encourage "dark" to open up to the light! I certainly don't do everything right as a hetero Mom, but I don't assume that someone else can't that is not of my sexual orientation. IT is the heart and mind that rule, not genitalia(hopefully)
I wish you both love in your life, not judgement.

[in2dadark]

Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre

While two pampered Siberian Huskies will hopefully be included in my "family" count, my main ambition in life is to adopt three children into a home of warmth and love from a home of neglect and abuse. I'm not going to involve myself into a whole "gay vs. anti-gay" type of debate on here, as if Yac closes this otherwise interesting thread due to "political controversy" I'll throw a tantrum, but someday you're going to have to concede to the fact that any loving home is better for a child as opposed to NO home at all. There are too many irresponsible STRAIGHT people running around pumping out kids at age 16, and if someone like me wants to provide a nice home for that child, then why object?

Too many of you heterosexuals do nothing but sit around and envision people like my partner and I in the bedroom, even though that is no more a part of our lives than it is for a typical straight couple. In2DaDark, I'd suggest you go see that new Adam Sandler movie, "Chuck and Larry," as it manages to draw attention to prejudice while still infusing enough humor to make the film captivating and interesting. Maybe then you'll change your ways.

So, by your rationale, because there are messed up hetero families gays have a license to mess up as well..? Oookkk??

And I should watch a homo training video 'chuck and larry' to endear me more towards your cause (is that how you learned)..? Yea. right. They'd never get my money for that mess. You liberals take over and we're all screwed. And if hillary has her way that is where we are heading.

You and Rosie and Ellen degenerate and all the other homos of this world should be 'six feet under'..
And then people whine and wonder why they are crashing planes into our buildings. Will you be having sex with your animals to up the ante...?

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by in2dadark

You and Rosie and Ellen degenerate and all the other homos of this world should be 'six feet under'..
And then people whine and wonder why they are crashing planes into our buildings. Will you be having sex with your animals to up the ante...?

I little homophobic there aren't ya, I never really understood why homophobes try and connect homosexuals with beastiality. In2dadark, you're really in the dark, that's for sure.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by in2dadark

You and Rosie and Ellen degenerate and all the other homos of this world should be 'six feet under'..
And then people whine and wonder why they are crashing planes into our buildings. Will you be having sex with your animals to up the ante...?

I feel the same way about you buddy, so there will be no hard feelings here when I read YOUR obituary in the Times-Leader either.

[SteelCityRising]

Getting back on track with intelligent conversation, does anyone else find it interesting that often-bashed Scranton is actually tied for first place with Clarks Summit in this poll? I was actually going to vote for Scranton myself until I realized I had to think realistically---Money Magazine habitually picks well-to-do suburbs over their respective supportive cities. This is why I think Clarks Summit stands a better chance of winning than Scranton, even though I personally think the Electric City is much more liveable.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre

Getting back on track with intelligent conversation, does anyone else find it interesting that often-bashed Scranton is actually tied for first place with Clarks Summit in this poll? I was actually going to vote for Scranton myself until I realized I had to think realistically---Money Magazine habitually picks well-to-do suburbs over their respective supportive cities. This is why I think Clarks Summit stands a better chance of winning than Scranton, even though I personally think the Electric City is much more liveable.

I agree to a point, but I think only the city proper should be considered, since the suburbs wouldn't exist without the city.

Personally, I can't stand the Abingtons. Snooty materialism, Mcmansions and cul-de-sacs turn me off. Give me a close-knit neighborhood full of mostly friendly down-to-earth people, neighborhood schools, and stores, churches, restaurants, playgrounds, etc, in walking distance anyday over Wisteria Lane. If I wasn't living in the city, I would want the exact opposite....to live in the country surrounded by woods. But sterile suburban subdivisions....no way.