Political correctness can kill

[Bill Glasheen]

You lay out a case, Bill, and then you shoot it down

Your false perception.

It's called a discussion, Ian. I'm not afraid to consider many points of view. It's called empathy, and it's considered a sign of emotional intelligence. After all, it isn't all about me. Ponder the thought.

... if marriage is about procreation, ok, but then you assume that same sex couples don't want the same

Same sex couples can only procreate outside the boundaries of their sexual union. It's a fact of nature that will remain so until science jumps that hurdle - which theoretically is possible.

This was an intellectual discussion about what makes heterosexual unions unique, Ian. Rather than demonstrate heterosexual union envy, why not focus on what makes your brand of union unique?

You even give the example of your friend who procreated within her same sex marriage.

No.

She procreated outside her same sex marriage, Ian. And she will raise her beautiful son with her same sex union partner. And I'm very happy for the two of them, and feel hopeful for their son.

And you completely failed to see the good in my love for and tolerance of them.

thanks, Bible, for the slave rape suggestion

To start with... This may be a matter of semantics. It may be slaves. It may be servants. What-ever... It was that society's cultural norm for dealing with childlessness. And given the absolute need for procreation back then - a matter of survival - *I* don't have a problem with that. Back in the day when we didn't have to put up with tax-suking, wealth redistributing central governments, children were your social security. It was a matter of survival when the ravages of old age set in. The adults cared for both their elders and their children. It's a wonderful model, Ian. I live it. You sometimes display contempt for it.

Lacking a sense of anthropological perspective, you chose to call it "rape." Did you interview all said participants in these unions? Are you so certain that ALL said unions weren't consensual? (Ever notice how many kids NBA players seem to spawn???) May we see the criminal files? Given the ugly language used by some to describe same-sex intimacy (need I go there???) I'm left dumbfounded at your characterization. It was a big reason why I chose just to leave this thread for a day. Perhaps you want to re-think all this. Or do you have that much venom for Judeochristian thought? I'm beginning to wonder, Ian. I see it again and again. It may be a big reason for your apparent mental logjam when it comes to same-sex unions.

Don't expect to get rights if you aren't willing to give a little. This is the nature of living with others. Fair is fair.

I'm not clear on why you let infertile heterosexuals marry.

I'm so sorry I gave them permission, Ian. I'll send the letters of revocation in the mail post haste.

I'm not sure why you won't let gays marry with the plan to adopt.

Do you really know what I think, Ian?

Is this about *Me*?? I think not. It's about what will work. I choose to step out of my own selfish views and wishes, and consider the desires of all parties. You keep making it personal. To wit...

Anyhoo, this is all not because of kids, religion, any of that; it's just what you're comfy with.

I rest my case.

Rather than wasting time worrying about couples having children, I would spend lots more energy on the problem of unwed mothers. This, I believe even Bill will admit, is not a problem for our homosexual population.

The best way to tackle that is to continue the dismantling of the Great Society programs which came close to destroying traditional marriage as we know it - PARTICULARLY in black households. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Who knew that liberal thinking would be so viciously discriminatory? Don't believe me? Look at the prison stats. One would think that our judicial system itself was discriminatory until one polls said prisoners and discovers the ugly consequence of fatherless households. An understanding of the difference between association and causality yields a result that few liberals want to admit. I give credit to Bill Clinton for partially addressing this catastrophe.

We can't stop men and women from engaging in intimate behavior. But we CAN hold BOTH participants responsible for their actions. A society that cares less about giving handouts and cares more about personal responsibility and accountability is a society which finds ways to self-regulate. That's my personal preference.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

This thread was about the political posturing of, inaction by, and stupid thinking of the current administration. You know... Obama's gonna get those Arizona people, because they DARE propose that FEDERAL LAW be enforced. The nerve of those law-abiding citizens!!!!!

Ian chose first to poo poo my disparaging remarks about The-Inexperience-One-In-Chief, and defend his policies. Obama can do no wrong. And whenever a Democrat/liberal starts defending Obama, often the discussion degrades to the usual tactic. Don't like Obama? You MUST be racist!!!!!

Subsequently Ian chose to hijack the thread and make it about gay marriage. And he chose further to presume what I believe. Well little did Ian know that he set himself up for this. I swear I didn't do this on purpose. But sometimes karma strikes as it should.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

**

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

Damn... That position sounds strikingly close to one I proposed as a logical compromise. And I didn't even need to invoke religion, although I addressed Judeochristan and Muslim dogma as a reason to consider it.

But what the hell do I know?

- Bill

[IJ]

Agreed that same sex unions need outside help for procreation. This is also true for some opposite sex unions. Marriage in modern culture is not about making biologic children with the new spouse; love is enough; adopting is enough; prior kids is enough; fertility help is enough. You claim that this is about "what will work," but we all know that same sex couples who adopt do just fine. That "will work." But we'll wait for you to catch up.

As for heterosexual envy, strawman. Nothing like that is happening here.

I failed to pick up on your tolerance for your lesbian friend because 1) she'd probably prefer acceptance to just being tolerated and 2) you said you thought she could do better. If that wasn't short of being happy for her, it came off that way.

I don't display contempt for whole families, caring for the young, or caring for the old. You just go ahead and post a quote from me showing "contempt" for that. Strawman.

You tell me I won't get rights without giving a little... here's what I'm giving: in return for people not interfering with my privacy, I don't interfere with theirs. They have their churches, their families, their marriages, their whatevers. Again, as I've said before, my anti Prop 8 sign read "Voting to take away my rights? I still support yours."

PS: I may lack anthropological "sensitivity" to the issue of slavery, but I think it was way wrong then, as wrong as it is now. And I think it's reasonable to suggest that slaves might not have been willful participants in these "unions" because they were PROPERTY. They probably can't consent (in the modern sense) under any circumstances, and probably didn't consent (in the ancient sense) unless you can expand your Bible reference to include the idea that people may only procreate with their slaves if all parties happily agree. Was that in the Bible? Is it "venom" if I denounce slavery and the idea of sex with slaves, who probably had no ability to decline, being owned by the one making advances? You'll find I have nothing but high praise for the good stuff, eg, the golden rule, charity, and so on, so again, this "Ian hates all of judeochristianity" stuff is: strawman.

At least we agree on personal responsibility. My people don't get anyone pregnant when they sleep around. But they do spread HIV and other diseases. I believe in accountability for that--cultural, and legal. Why not monetary?

[IJ]

"Ian chose first to poo poo my disparaging remarks about The-Inexperience-One-In-Chief, and defend his policies. Obama can do no wrong. And whenever a Democrat/liberal starts defending Obama, often the discussion degrades to the usual tactic. Don't like Obama? You MUST be racist!!!!!"

Nonsense. I asked you to tell us what you'd prefer Obama do, I got no reply. I asked you how is foreign policy was different than Bush's (you've complained before he got a Peace Prize for changing the bumper sticker on the tank, remember that cartoon?) and it came down to he uses less aggressive language. That's so bad? And it's not Obama can do no wrong, I explicitly indicated I don't share all his views, and for one, I specifically mentioned how I critiqued his healthcare bill for not addressing the causes of rising healthcare prices and threatening to explode our deficit and give the USA to China. At the time, you agreed. Now, I'm a shill for Obama. Hmm. And I never said you were racist or that disagreeing with Obama was racist; I expressed the concern teh law would lead to harrassment of latino US citizens and never said removing illegals was a problem. You may recall a heated dispute with JR over reporting illegals seeking healthcare. I repeatedly said a state may remove them but it would be unethical to punish them for seeking healthcare, especially as a provider. Hardly carte blanche to stick around in the USA forever.

The thread then evolved into discussions about immigration law, libertarians and displeasure with incumbents, and me not liking Rand Paul for saying he wouldn't have stopped racism the way the civil rights act did; that got me lectures in libertarianism (later ignored when same sex marriage came up) and prompted the side topics of abortion / contraceptive rights and gay rights, issues which are pertinent to this so-called libertarian's predicted law making plans. You were happy to chat along.

Since we are talking about what we each presume the other believes, your point that Obama does not support marriage rights fully is... really confusing. Your mistake a few dozen posts back was to label me an Obama shill and falsely claim I think he can do no wrong. I am not satisfied with Obama's record on gay rights but believe it was better than any alternative I had to choose. You can't "tolja so" on Obama if I wasn't a shill in the first place.

PS: I don't recall you supporting the full on marriages offered in several states now as a states rights, maybe I missed that. I've only heard support for civil unions and no marriage (anything less than that would be blatantly discriminatory and very difficult to justify on data or state aims, of course). And how do you handle "full faith and credit?"

[Panther]

Haven't been ignoring, just been out of town... Sorry...

I actually wrote a very long and extensive response, but then decided against it.

Furthermore, taken to its logical extreme there can be no government at all. Not even police and regular laws, because hey, the police obviously are going to be "bad" people because they get law enforcement powers, which causes the system to be rigged. Now maybe you actually want no government at all, but that would be a very extreme anarchist position. If that's something you want to see happen, then the conversation can end there.

OK...

[IJ]

Kids With Lesbian Parents Do Just Fine
Study shows they might even be better adjusted than kids from
traditional families
Posted: June 7, 2010

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, June 7 (HealthDay News) -- When compared to teens of the same
age, adolescents raised by lesbian parents are doing just fine
socially, psychologically and academically, new research finds.

Not only that, they have fewer social problems, and less aggressive
and rule-breaking behaviors than other teens.

The nearly 20-year study has followed 78 teens since their lesbian
mothers were planning their pregnancies, and concluded that these
children "demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment." These
findings stand in contrast to what some vocal opponents of gay or
lesbian parents might have expected.

"One of the things that opponents of the equalities of gays and
lesbians -- in marriage, parenting, adoption and foster care -- often
bring up is the so-called gold standard of parenting, which defined by
them is the traditional family where children are conceived in
traditional ways and not through insemination or surrogates. But, when
we compared the adolescents in our study to the so-called gold
standard, we found the teens with lesbian mothers were actually doing
better," said study author Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the Williams
Distinguished Scholar at the University of California Los Angeles
School of Law.

As to why these teens are doing better, Gartrell said, "Moms in the
lesbian family are very committed, very involved parents."

Gartrell said she expects that these findings would also translate to
the children of gay male parents as well. "Gay male parents are
another group of very committed parents, and really, [among gay male
couples] only economically privileged gay men have access to the
opportunity to become parents right now," she said.

Family therapist Andrew Roffman, at the New York University Langone
Medical Center, wasn't surprised by the findings and agreed that such
results would likely be similar for gay male parents.

"Good parenting makes for healthier children, regardless of your
sexual orientation. Whether you're gay, straight or lesbian, good
parenting is good parenting," said Roffman.

Results of Gartrell's study will be published in the July issue of Pediatrics.

Between 1986 and 1992, Gartrell and her colleague, Henry Bos,
recruited 154 prospective lesbian mothers as they were considering
artificial insemination, or once they were already pregnant.

As the children have grown, the researchers have been periodically
checking in on them, and the latest follow-up included questionnaires
completed by 78 children when they were 10 and again when they were
17. The study also included an interview with one of each child's
mothers to assess the child's psychological well-being.

The results were then compared to a group of age-matched children from
traditional families.

Compared to the traditionally reared teens, adolescents with lesbian
parents rated significantly higher in social, academic and total
competence, according to the study. The teens with lesbian parents
also rated significantly lower when it came to social problems,
rule-breaking and aggressive behavior than teens raised in more
traditional families.

Even in homes where the lesbian parents had split up, the researchers
found that those teens still fared better than teens from more
traditional families.

Just over four in 10 of the teens raised by lesbian parents reported
that they had been stigmatized at some point because of their parents'
sexual orientation, said Gartrell. But, when the researchers compared
those who had been stigmatized to those who hadn't, they found no
significant psychological differences.

"These young people seem to have done well; they have some
resilience," she said.

Roffman said there's likely a resilience factor at play. And, he said,
it may come from the lesbian parents thinking ahead of time about what
the child's experiences might be and talking with the children before
anything happens.

"Probably the most effective thing to do is to prepare kids ahead of
time. Let them know that there is still a cultural stigma and that
they may encounter children and adults who are insensitive. Having
these kinds of talks is relationship-building for both parents and
children," said Roffman

"The outcomes here were very clear. These are families in which the
mothers were very committed, involved and loving. The 17-year-old
adolescents are healthy, happy and high-functioning," said Gartrell.

More information

To read more about children of gay or lesbian parents, visit the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/fa ... -fine.html

[Panther]

For the first time in the U.S. over 50% of the population has stated that they have no problems with someone being homosexual. Interestingly enough, more men than women are saying that. I know there are the other folks to still worry about, just as there are racists/sexists/etc. to worry about, but it should be nice to know that this is swinging in the correct (almost wrote "right" there... hahahaha ) direction!

[IJ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opini ... rch&st=cse

Sounds like you're referring to this stuff. Familiarity breeds nonchalance, I think.