[The Final Dakar]

He saying kids are usually the offspring of their parents who usually conceived them while married. I think.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Marital presumption of parentage has its foundations in biology"

What?

I don't disagree with him on that point - I just don't see how that would or should preclude a gay couple from adopting a child.

[subego]

I still don't really understand it.

Where's the "biology" foundation? Should we have been letting rabbits marry?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't disagree with him on that point - I just don't see how that would or should preclude a gay couple from adopting a child.

Because their legal argument depends on it. Instead of situation where you say having two parents of the same gender is not ideal, now they have to claim its downright (potentially) harmful. It's binary thinking coupled with scaremongering.

It's funny, "Think of the children" is one of the oldest political clichés and in this case it's actually being used as the defense against what two consenting adults can do. That's called not having a leg to ****ing stand on.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah there is a lot of people arguing that marriage has a strong link to conceiving children, but the simple fact is that society is comfortable with children conceived out of wedlock these days and marriage is more about raising kids than conceiving them. Or it should be anyway.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Alito was pretty out there today from what I seen.

Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another? | CNS News

(CNSNews.com) - In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes.

“Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito asked.

“Let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers,” he said.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah there is a lot of people arguing that marriage has a strong link to conceiving children, but the simple fact is that society is comfortable with children conceived out of wedlock

Eh, depends on where you live, it's still frowned upon quite sternly around here.

[subego]

While I won't go so far as to say urban life beats rural life in a general sense, it does in this particular case. People just don't give a **** here.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Eh, depends on where you live, it's still frowned upon quite sternly around here.

Really? Do you live in the 1950s?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Really? Do you live in the 1950s?

Tennessee, close enough.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Really? Do you live in the 1950s?

As if being a single parent is generally a good thing. Know why a good deal of society is ****ed up? Single parent households.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tennessee, close enough.

We're quite progressive, most of us even have indoor plumbing now.

[subego]

I thought you were talking about two-parent households where the parents aren't married.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought you were talking about two-parent households where the parents aren't married.

Nah, rural folk, even the more religious ones, aren't as pissy about that anymore.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Nah, rural folk, even the more religious ones, aren't as pissy about that anymore.

Since this thread is about two-parent households who aren't married but want to be, my original point stands.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

As if being a single parent is generally a good thing. Know why a good deal of society is ****ed up? Single parent households.



We're quite progressive, most of us even have indoor plumbing now.

These two statements feel ever-so-slightly at odds with each other.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Since this thread is about two-parent households who aren't married but want to be, my original point stands.

I thought this was a general thread about gay people?

Anyway, "society is comfortable with children conceived out of wedlock", is in itself a false statement, since an ever dwindling number children are born into stable 2-person homes, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents. A vast majority of kids "born out of wedlock" are born to single-parent homes, specifically to a single mother, which is a less than ideal situation, and has been proven to lead to severe problems in socialization and emotional development (that's logical, since she can't be with them enough to both provide and care for them). I'm not "comfortable with that", and I feel that no one should be.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

These two statements feel ever-so-slightly at odds with each other.

The second was sarcasm, so... But in any event, I'm not sure how the statements could be "at odds with each other".

[The Final Dakar]

Santorum: 'Love and accept' Bruce Jenner - CNNPolitics.com

"If he says he's a woman, then he's a woman," Santorum told BuzzFeed during a roundtable discussion in South Carolina on Saturday.

Santorum continued: "My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are."

"These are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody," he added.

Santorum so far to the right he somehow came out the left. Or is he?

"Many of you may have read a story published by the website BuzzFeed where I was asked for my thoughts regarding Bruce Jenner. My comment affirmed Jenner as a person, made by God in His likeness as we all are. It was meant to express empathy not a change in public policy. #‎compassion" Santorum wrote.

Compassion and empathy – a political liability.

[Waragainstsleep]

"If he says he's a woman, then he's a woman,"

Point missed methinks.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Point missed methinks.

Jenner still considers himself a man. But let's not shit on people because they don't have a good grasp of gender terms when their heart is in the right place.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The second was sarcasm, so... But in any event, I'm not sure how the statements could be "at odds with each other".

Frowning on single parents cannot possibly be considered progressive in the 21st century.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jenner still considers himself a man. But let's not shit on people because they don't have a good grasp of gender terms when their heart is in the right place.

I'm not sure he considers himself a man, but has stated a preference for "he" as of now.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Frowning on single parents cannot possibly be considered progressive in the 21st century.

Compared to ostracization it might be.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This was four years after the Dept. of Ed. report.

Schools cut secret deals with abusive teachers | OregonLive.com


From The Dept of Ed report. (sorry for the long quote)

Apologies for not responding for several days- we've experienced a bit of a personal tragedy in our family (wife diagnosed with cancer- not good) and I've not been here.

Basically- it would seem you are absolutely right and I was wrong- at least some segments of the US public school system are depraved beyond belief- I am genuinely shocked and horrified.

However, this has limited to no bearing on my argument: that things have not definitely gotten worse since the the 'sexual revolution'. Some people in power have always been horrible. Some will continue to be. This is true no matter if the power is derived from the school system or the Church. The strong prey on the weak. Many have suffered from the loosening of 'morals,' many others have become empowered. I would like to think I would not have remained silent over my own sexual abuse had I not grown up in a devoutly Christian home and been given a proper sexual education. Who knows.

I'm not really following this discussion right now because I have other things on my mind. But it was important for me to acknowledge that you, based on the evidence, were right and I was wrong- some elements- perhaps many elements- of the public school system in the states are wretched. This makes me very sad.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jenner still considers himself a man. But let's not shit on people because they don't have a good grasp of gender terms when their heart is in the right place.

If I was going to shit on Santorum it wouldn't be over this. One compassionate statement hardly proves his heart is in the right place either.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Compared to ostracization it might be.

Damned right, big difference between the two. I disapprove of a lot of things and actions, but that doesn't mean I actively work against them or pine for their removal from society. Tolerance is about a degree acceptance, not necessarily approval (as I've said numerous times before).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Damned right, big difference between the two. I disapprove of a lot of things and actions, but that doesn't mean I actively work against them or pine for their removal from society. Tolerance is about a degree acceptance, not necessarily approval (as I've said numerous times before).

I wondered about this but lets remember you were talking about your community rather than yourself initially. If enough people disapprove of someone then ostracising is going to happen to some extent.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Tolerance is about a degree acceptance, not necessarily approval (as I've said numerous times before).

Right.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

See? We can agree on things.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

See? We can agree on things.

No we cant
obvious joke

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Dr Evil: "We're really not so different, you and I."

[dampeoples]

hrm

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like this will happen.
Faith leaders demand that liberal justices sit out gay marriage case | TheHill

Heh, they must be extra happy now.

[The Final Dakar]

LAs religious bill is dead.
Louisiana's religious freedom bill effectively defeated in committee | NOLA.com

A Louisiana House panel has effectively defeated religious freedom legislation that drew staunch opponents to it based on criticism – either real or perceived – that it authorizes discrimination against LGBT people.

The bill (HB 707) is designed to block the government from pulling licenses, tax benefits, and the like from a company because of the owner's view of same-sex marriage. But LGBT advocates and a few legal experts have said it would also allow businesses of any size to refuse to recognize and sanction discrimination against married same-sex couples, should same-sex marriage become legal in Louisiana.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City

Jawbone!

Syke, Jindal gonna cram the freedom in

"We are disappointed by the committee's action to return the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act to the calendar. We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will accomplish the intent of HB 707 to prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.

"This Executive Order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance

This reads as nothing but political posturing for his presidential bid, but I look forward to conservatives decrying his dictator method of action.

[The Final Dakar]

Total protonic reversal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/re...-marriage.aspx

Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Though same-sex marriage continues to be politically divisive, support for its legal status has reached new highs among Americans of all political stripes -- with Democrats at 76% support, independents at 64% and Republicans at 37%.

The partisan gap is staggering. That's all religion, baby.

The party divide between Democrats and Republicans may hinge largely on the age groups that compose each party. Gallup has found that younger Americans are significantly more likely to lean Democratic, while older Americans skew Republican. And while majorities of each age group under 65 support marriage equality in 2015, those aged 65 and older are still more likely to oppose it. This is a new phenomenon for the 50- to 64-year-old group. Last year, just 48% of these middle-aged Americans supported legally recognizing gay marriage. But in 2015, this figure has climbed to a majority of 54%.

On both ends of the political spectrum, this could make same-sex marriage a more salient issue in the 2016 election than it has been previously. While pro-gay marriage voters are more likely to hold a political candidate's feet to the fire than in the past, there is an even larger bloc of anti-gay marriage voters who could reject a candidate for espousing marriage equality.

That buts the GOP between a rock and a hard place. They can accept where the nation is headed, but alienate their most active and reliable bloc (which would likely vote for them anyway because what's the alternative?). Or they can cling to religious fervor (which seems to be the current strategy) and alienate the young and politically moderate nationally. Fun times.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The partisan gap is staggering. That's all religion, baby.

I can buy the argument you don't want to have the SCOTUS ram this down the throats of the states, but that's not what the question asked, so yeah, seems religiously based.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can buy the argument you don't want to have the SCOTUS ram this down the throats of the states, but that's not what the question asked, so yeah, seems religiously based.

You can narrow it down to two religious groups, amazingly. From last year:

White Evangelicals and Black Protestants were the only religious people not to have a majority support gay marriage. And the Black protestants doubled their white evangelical counterparts, 36 to 18.

I wish there was a breakdown of voters by religion, I want to know what % of the population is holding the GOP hostage.

[subego]

The Republican/Democrat split among white evangelicals is about 80/20, which is suspiciously close to how the split is with regard to same sex marriage.

[The Final Dakar]

I can see how its hard to give 1/3 of your base the tough love treatment. Yikes.

[subego]

Now, if you took abortion, homos, and guns off the table, would these white evangelicals flip?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, if you took abortion, homos, and guns off the table, would these white evangelicals flip?

I don't think I understand the question properly, but I'm thinking the reverse. Unless the GOP moderates on abortion and guns, why should the evangelicals abstain? Homos couldn't possibly be a bigger deal the the first two, right?

[subego]

If they didn't, that's some Old Testament shit right there.

I think the Democrats let their good intentions get way ahead of their good sense, and it pisses me off to no end, but I can't argue with a straight face it's the Republicans who are the party of "love thy ****ing neighbor".

Edit: that wasn't meant as a reply. Simultaneous post.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't think I understand the question properly, but I'm thinking the reverse. Unless the GOP moderates on abortion and guns, why should the evangelicals abstain? Homos couldn't possibly be a bigger deal the the first two, right?

I'm saying the Dems are pro-abortion, pro-homo, and anti-gun. This is what turns the evangelicals off the Democratic Party.

If those things weren't a question, would voting Democratic appeal more to them?

[subego]

I meant "off the table" as in "not existing" rather than "non negotiable".

Not the best use of the phrase since it's not really what it means.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm saying the Dems are pro-abortion, pro-homo, and anti-gun. This is what turns the evangelicals off the Democratic Party.

If those things weren't a question, would voting Democratic appeal more to them?

Yes. If the Democrats can secure 1 in 5 despite all of the above, than it follows less barrier to entry would induce greater membership.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the Democrats let their good intentions get way ahead of their good sense, and it pisses me off to no end, but I can't argue with a straight face it's the Republicans who are the party of "love thy ****ing neighbor"

That's one of the bigger political mysteries for me. Democrats are more irreligious so how is it that they can, in ways, be the ones acting more christian?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's one of the bigger political mysteries for me. Democrats are more irreligious so how is it that they can, in ways, be the ones acting more christian?

That's why I'm thinking if the three issues from above weren't relevant, you'd get something of a wholesale exodus.

At least, I'd like to think that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's why I'm thinking if the three issues from above weren't relevant, you'd get something of a wholesale exodus.

At least, I'd like to think that.

You'll have to clarify how this connects to the above conversation. You're positing removing one of three pillars is too dangerous for the GOP?

[subego]

I think we're talking about different things, but what I think you think I'm talking about is interesting, too.

What I'm asking is "in a world without guns, gays, and... some 'G' word for abortion, what party would the evangelicals naturally gravitate to and why?"

I think what you think I'm asking is "if Republicans and Democrats were both, say, pro-homo, where would the evangelicals fall?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we're talking about different things,

The difference being, mine is actually connected to what I brought up. Which is to say, I don't mind unrelated tangent (actually I do, but there's latitude) but at least label it when you're going off the reservation of the conversation we're having.

This feels like a great example of why we end up talking past each other so often.

[The Final Dakar]

Ireland is having a big ol' referendum today.