Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you are saying the standard of raising biological children doesn't matter if they are raised by their non-biological same sex foster parents?......that should be the standard? it doesn't have an effect on the child? you are saying that is irrelevant? ...based on what studies?
you know adopted kids or children raised by foster parents are more prone to be insecure and unwanted?
you know a child has DNA of both the biological mother and the biological father?.....you know that a woman has biological traits that a man can never copy and man has natural traits that a woman can't copy.
So are children whose parents aren't involved in their lives, what is your point? The biological part a child is going to pick up through their life. Living with a man isn't going to inform of some mystical knowledge only a Father can impart to a child. Children in foster care usually bounce through the system and go through abuse. It stands to reason that they will have more problems than the normal child.
a polygamy home has 3 to 10 parent family, shouldn't that be the standard? more parents in the home the better to raise the children?..shouldn't that be the standard?
That was the standard for the majority of human history actually. Not the polygamy part, but raising the family as a large social unit . It's only in relatively modern times, historically speaking, that you have the nuclear family unit.
I'm somewhat confused regarding the discussion of required 1 male and 1 female adult ( parents) per household ..and IF you disagree you are a leftist or some troll.....Actually..I was divorced when children were 6 and 9 ( both males) and I never remarried and useless father did nothing to support them..So it left to me to talk that sex talk amongst so many other value things..such as respect women, respect and protect those being bullied etc...
Anyway, Maybe because I was/am a medical professional it was easier to deal with information sharings for my boys..I kept it age appropriate, answered their questions clearly and in words they could understand. Yes I was clinical..but used words and gave examples so they could grasp it....I also realized some things like morale/ethics (socially) was needed..especially in Sports/fair play notions..so reached out to their coaches or teachers for that after vetting their POV's over time...I even brought in Police Officer's to sit down with them to explain that side of things..(of course I was with them during that conversation)..
My point is...How in God's Green Acres does narrow minded folks who can't accept that children can and do develop and grow up just fine with out a 1male/1 female household?? and Go forth and condemn things they have NO EXPERIENCE in..parrot talking points then condemn using texts from the Bible which can and is translated differently by many a scholar. .Sorry about my run on and on and on sentence there
I could give a fig if you support it on not. Just don't stand in the way when the truck of progress moves past you is all
It's none of your business what others support as individuals people should believe what they want and not follow blindly as sheep. I'm not going to walk off a cliff just because the others did.
As a conservative, I believe just the opposite. The Declaration of Independence includes a right to pursuit happiness, and for many, marriage is a manner in which happiness is pursued.
It doesn't matter what you believe or how you lean politically. First, the Declaration of Independence, while an amazing document, has no force in law. Second, the "pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you can do whatever makes you happy. It goes Locke's Treatise on natural rights and his notion that "governments are instituted to secure people's rights to ‘life, liberty, and property' " and "the necessity of pursuing happiness (is) the foundation of liberty".
It was on those blocks that Jefferson built the document and the justification to throw off the English yoke. The ability to acquire and secure property was the way to secure your happiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~HecateWhisperCat~
It also recognizes that everyone is to be treated equal under the law. Something the Republicans touting the Constitution seem to forget about.
Everyone is treated equal under the law. That you don't like the equal treatment you get isn't my problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
for me the pursuit of happiness is having endless sex with 3 hot babes at the same time.....where in the U.S. constitution gives me that "right".
I take your point to mean the pursuit of happiness isn't in the U.S. Constitution, and that is quite right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
A complete lie. The Tea Party is a group of evangelical Christians that focused on gays, abortion, birth control, privatizing education, war in the Middle East, immigration, etc. They have no problem with defense spending, they have no problem with wasted trillions in the Iraq War. I read these Tea Party blogs every day. They only mention debt and budgets about 10% of the time. The rest is all about social conservatism of Biblical proportions. Scripture is covered at least weekly if not more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I guarantee you it will be by a Republican too. So for those that say the Tea Party is only about fiscal issues, guess again. The Tea Party is about getting into the personal business of other.
You should be very judicious in your use of the word "lie". I gave you the sites of four leading tea party movement websites and challenged you to show me where they talk about social issues.
Your lack of response to that and getting ever shriller voice on spreading your own special brand of hate exposes on which side the truth lies.
It doesn't matter what you believe or how you lean politically. First, the Declaration of Independence, while an amazing document, has no force in law. Second, the "pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you can do whatever makes you happy. It goes Locke's Treatise on natural rights and his notion that "governments are instituted to secure people's rights to ‘life, liberty, and property' " and "the necessity of pursuing happiness (is) the foundation of liberty".
It was on those blocks that Jefferson built the document and the justification to throw off the English yoke. The ability to acquire and secure property was the way to secure your happiness.
The Supreme Court has often quoted the Declaration of Independence, especially in regards to marriage issues, including if whites could marry blacks, so while what I believe isn't important, what they believe is far more important than both of our opinions together.
I don't know where you thought that it was GOP.....
Because it was the Log Cabin Republicans who filed the initial lawsuit that found DADT unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The Declaration of Independence covers a pursuit of Happiness, and the Supreme Court has always cited the Declaration as an extension to the Constitution.
You might want to rethink that. In Cotting v. Godard the Court clearly states, "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty...... "
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Again, wrong argument, that argument only applies to pure Democratic nations, which we are not one. We're a Representative Republic.
We are not a representative republic when we have the initiative process. Then we are a direct democracy. I think in most of the cases where a definition of marriage is on the ballot the same sex side has lost by a vote of the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The Civil War was fought over the federal government being able to dictate laws to the state. Did you forget that part of history?
No the Civil War was fought because the South left the union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
They left the union why?
Because they felt the union was a free association. That they could leave as voluntarily as they entered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn
My point is...How in God's Green Acres does narrow minded folks who can't accept that children can and do develop and grow up just fine with out a 1male/1 female household??
It has not worked out so well for the inner cities where single parent homes are the norm and some 70% of births are to single parent homes.
It has led to lower educational outcomes, higher rates of crime and violence and higher rates of poverty.
Yes, kids can do fine with one parent, but statistically speaking, it is not the best situation.
It's none of your business what others support as individuals people should believe what they want and not follow blindly as sheep. I'm not going to walk off a cliff just because the others did.
Because it was the Log Cabin Republicans who filed the initial lawsuit that found DADT unconstitutional.
You might want to rethink that. In Cotting v. Godard the Court clearly states, "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty...... "
We are not a representative republic when we have the initiative process. Then we are a direct democracy. I think in most of the cases where a definition of marriage is on the ballot the same sex side has lost by a vote of the people.
No the Civil War was fought because the South left the union.
Because they felt the union was a free association. That they could leave as voluntarily as they entered.
It has not worked out so well for the inner cities where single parent homes are the norm and some 70% of births are to single parent homes.
It has led to lower educational outcomes, higher rates of crime and violence and higher rates of poverty.
Yes, kids can do fine with one parent, but statistically speaking, it is not the best situation.
They also live in a lower socio economic reality as well. Even the children who manage to keep both parents around face just as many difficulties.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It's only in relatively modern times, historically speaking, that you have the nuclear family unit.
.Sorry about my run on and on and on sentence there 
