first married lesbian THREESOME . . . and they're expecting a baby due in June

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

What "third grade" did you attend? I advanced clean through (just like Jethro Bodine) the sixth grade, high school, college in engineering, medical school, residency, and fellowship. Anytime you want to match academic credentials and IQ points beyond your crowning achievement of third grade, let me know.

What an absolute bore.

There's a difference between having IQ and being highly educated.... and actually demonstrating that you can use both to think critically.


These sorts of stances on social morality that you advance suggest you haven't really mastered that art.



Squandered potential at the alter of knee jerk traditionalism and conservative talking points, time and again.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

What an absolute bore.

There's a difference between having IQ and being highly educated.... and actually demonstrating that you can use both to think critically.


These sorts of stances on social morality that you advance suggest you haven't really mastered that art.



Squandered potential at the alter of knee jerk traditionalism and conservative talking points, time and again.

Hmmmmm.................

So no repsonse at all to the cultural and historical basis for the two parent family? Of course not.

IQ and education are certainly not the same, but are linked in most cases. Rarely do you find an uneducated genius or a highly educated imbecile. I will match IQ points or education with you any day. I will give you a hint- my measured IQ is the same as that of Sharon Stone and Marilyn Monroe.

You should enroll in a few college engineering and graduate level mathematics classes. It will improve your ability to rationally solve problems and evaluate data. Sticking your thumb in the wind and attempting to support baseless opinions is rendering yourself defenseless in an objective discussion.

[EntropyGuardian]

Originally Posted by State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883):

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Originally Posted by Scott v. Georgia (1869):

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Originally Posted by Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863:

"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Originally Posted by Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney:

"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

Originally Posted by Lonas v. State (1871):

Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

Originally Posted by Bob Jones University, (1998):

"Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

Originally Posted by From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia:

"I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

Unnatural, immoral, breaking down society. Anything else we haven't heard before?

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Hmmmmm.................

So no repsonse at all to the cultural and historical basis for the two parent family? Of course not.

The "two parent family" is actually a relatively new phenomena in our culture. Especially the concept of the "nuclear" family, which became the norm in the 20th century.

In fact, extended family and multiple child rearing, the concept of wet nurses, women assuming all duties of child rearing alone while men were largely absent from children's lives... is pretty much the norm of western civilization - and indeed - human civilization, until relatively recently.

And let's not forget that the natural state of humanity is arguably plural relationships and polygamy, if tribal research and customs available to this day in primitive people is any indication.


Also, today there are many, many unmarried people of both sexes, so there is certainly no shortage of spouses for anyone, even if what amounts to a very small percentage choose to enter into plural relationships.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

IQ and education are certainly not the same, but are linked in most cases. Rarely do you find an uneducated genius or a highly educated imbecile. I will match IQ points or education with you any day. I will give you a hint- my measured IQ is the same as that of Sharon Stone and Marilyn Monroe.

Your IQ means bunk to me, and frankly, I'm not impressed. I've seen more than my share of "high IQ professionals" be called to task for screw ups, bad professional opinions and decisions, and for literally hurting people. But, we all do know that doctors are susceptible to god complexes, so perhaps it's not surprising...do you also make reservations at restaurants as "the Dr. and Mrs. Hawkeye2009?"


Actually, it's a bit embarrassing you felt the need to lay your credentials on the table to excuse your otherwise elementary mentality and point of view on this topic, which that other poster succinctly exposed.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

You should enroll in a few college engineering and graduate level mathematics classes. It will improve your ability to rationally solve problems and evaluate data. Sticking your thumb in the wind and attempting to support baseless opinions is rendering yourself defenseless in an objective discussion.

So sad. It's like you should otherwise know better. Truly educated people do not usually believe the type of moralizing nonsense you peddle. We leave that to the bottom half of the intelligence pool who cannot operate or order their lives without external pressure to conform and get in line.

Not even a college engineering of "graduate level mathematics" course would provide the answer to THAT, I'm afraid.

I mean, I could understand when one is fiscally conservative because they have money... but for a "high IQ" individual to be susceptible to the busy body tendencies of social moralism? How does one explain that, rationally?

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

The "two parent family" is actually a relatively new phenomena in our culture. Especially the concept of the "nuclear" family, which became the norm in the 20th century.

In fact, extended family and multiple child rearing, the concept of wet nurses, women assuming all duties of child rearing alone while men were largely absent from children's lives... is pretty much the norm of western civilization - and indeed - human civilization, until relatively recently.

And let's not forget that the natural state of humanity is arguably plural relationships and polygamy, if tribal research and customs available to this day in primitive people is any indication.


Also, today there are many, many unmarried people of both sexes, so there is certainly no shortage of spouses for anyone, even if what amounts to a very small percentage choose to enter into plural relationships.






Your IQ means bunk to me, and frankly, I'm not impressed. I've seen more than my share of "high IQ professionals" be called to task for screw ups, bad professional opinions and decisions, and for literally hurting people. But, we all do know that doctors are susceptible to god complexes, so perhaps it's not surprising...do you also make reservations at restaurants as "the Dr. and Mrs. Hawkeye2009?"


Actually, it's a bit embarrassing you felt the need to lay your credentials on the table to excuse your otherwise elementary mentality and point of view on this topic, which that other poster succinctly exposed.






So sad. It's like you should otherwise know better. Truly educated people do not usually believe the type of moralizing nonsense you peddle. We leave that to the bottom half of the intelligence pool who cannot operate or order their lives without external pressure to conform and get in line.

Not even a college engineering of "graduate level mathematics" course would provide the answer to THAT, I'm afraid.

I mean, I could understand when one is fiscally conservative because they have money... but for a "high IQ" individual to be susceptible to the busy body tendencies of social moralism? How does one explain that, rationally?

BS-

Intermarriage among races has been common over the history of man. There are no disadvantages (and probably some genetic advantages) to marriage among those of different races. This is the real advantage of DIVERSITY; this is why one should not marry your sister. "Cultural diversity", on the other hand, has been shown to be destructive to a nation and has nothing to do with genetic diversity.

Again, let us review why there has been two parent families with a mother and a father throughout the history of man. This arrangment did not occur due to chance, but has been the best arrangment to advance civilization.

The two parent nuclear family has been THE NORM FOR THE BALANCE OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION! Your revisionist recollection of human civilization does not make it true.
1. maintaining stability and peace in a civilization: if there are several men with multiple wives, this means that typically there will be many disgruntled single men, who may be prone to violence. Married men with families tend to be less violent.

2. transmission of male/female skills/roles to children. Sorry- but three lesbian mothers are not going to be able to effectively transmit male gender roles effectively to a child. Throughout history, this is how males were taught to hunt and provide material assets for a family, while the mother cared for the children.

3. provision of a safe, stable environment in which children can be raised

4. focusing attention and resources on one's own progeny

5. orderly transmission of wealth and resources to the next generation

6. genetic adaptability

PS-

Again, think about those mathematics classes. It could really help with your reasoning and problem solving abilities. When one relies upon emotion and anecdotes as a basis for solving problems, chaos will result, as such decisions have no established foundation in fact- thus liberalism.

I do not tout my credentials (except to idiots). Being called "doctor" where I trained was used as an insult to belittle those in training. Keep in mind that we routinely do not seek the advice or council of those with lower intelligence and less education, as such advice will tend to be inferior. Given that, perhaps you can help me to understand why one should grant credence to your emotional "arguments"?

[JohnnyMack]

It seems many that are against one person or two persons of the same sex having children is because they say the child will not be exposed to the other gender ... WHAT? you think these children will live in an Isolation Bubble?? They attend school, play group sports, have friends, relatives, their parents have friends, etc..

If most of the adult males I was exposed to as a child were good roll models as what a MAN is ... I think I will keep being the respectful, law abiding, relatively successful male I grew into ... raised by a SINGLE mother(divorce). I know MANY males that are doing just fine as adults having been raised by a "single" mother.

[omaha hughes]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

BS-

Intermarriage among races has been common over the history of man. There are no disadvantages (and probably some genetic advantages) to marriage among those of different races. This is the real advantage of DIVERSITY; this is why one should not marry your sister. "Cultural diversity", on the other hand, has been shown to be destructive to a nation and has nothing to do with genetic diversity.

Again, let us review why there has been two parent families with a mother and a father throughout the history of man. This arrangment did not occur due to chance, but has been the best arrangment to advance civilization.

The two parent nuclear family has been THE NORM FOR THE BALANCE OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION! Your revisionist recollection of human civilization does not make it true.
1. maintaining stability and peace in a civilization: if there are several men with multiple wives, this means that typically there will be many disgruntled single men, who may be prone to violence. Married men with families tend to be less violent.

2. transmission of male/female skills/roles to children. Sorry- but three lesbian mothers are not going to be able to effectively transmit male gender roles effectively to a child. Throughout history, this is how males were taught to hunt and provide material assets for a family, while the mother cared for the children.

3. provision of a safe, stable environment in which children can be raised

4. focusing attention and resources on one's own progeny

5. orderly transmission of wealth and resources to the next generation

6. genetic adaptability

PS-

Again, think about those mathematics classes. It could really help with your reasoning and problem solving abilities. When one relies upon emotion and anecdotes as a basis for solving problems, chaos will result, as such decisions have no established foundation in fact- thus liberalism.

I do not tout my credentials (except to idiots). Being called "doctor" where I trained was used as an insult to belittle those in training. Keep in mind that we routinely do not seek the advice or council of those with lower intelligence and less education, as such advice will tend to be inferior. Given that, perhaps you can help me to understand why one should grant credence to your emotional "arguments"?

I'm sure you were planning to explain what business any of this is of yours but just forgot to add that into your post, so feel free to go ahead and do it now

[Ih2puo]

Congratulations now leave me alone.