Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"

[Andrew-Austin]

Slippery slope fallacy.

There is a big difference between recognizing that children deserve both a mother and a father, and using police powers to yank children away from their only parent. Our society has rushed headlong down a path of dismantling traditional families. All I'm saying is that maybe we should be a little more cautious and deliberate with our social engineering experiments.

If your concerned about dismantling traditional families, then oppose mandatory public education before you oppose gay marriage/adoption.

 

[lucius]

sure, sure, sure...

That is absolute bullshit. Those studies have been utterly debunked, despite the Christian Right continuously using them to spout hatred and bigotry. I suppose you believe we can get AIDS from toilet seats too.

Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997

Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men
than all men aged 30–44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for
the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The
probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the
9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%.
Conclusion. In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less
than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual
men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the
year 1871.

International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf

No they don't debunk, just put asinine statements like this: "[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group." This study was conducted by pro-'gay' researchers in Canada.

The fact that we don't have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by well-monied backed lobbyists, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Nothing more than Applied Eugenics--die young, don't breed, easier to control.

Not for my children...

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The only reason I'm intersted in this subject at all, is in how it relates to law in family court. When people come before the court to petition for custody of a child, the determination should go one of two ways:

A jury decides who gets custody.

Or

If a judge is making the ruling, then they should base that ruling on the best interests of the child, which will almost always lead to placement with a heterosexual parent. I do not want the courts to evaluate as equal an otherwise suitable heterosexual family with a homosexual family. The homosexual family, barring any other considerations, is always an inferior setting for raising children, and the courts should recognize that fact. Same would be true of any other whackass family associations that dipshit humans invent. Now of course, if there are other factors, for example, the heterosexual parent is a convicted murderer, then yeah that would outweigh the negatives of the homosexual family. But in the case where the two families are otherwise equal, preference should go to the hetero family.

What worries me is that this move to legitimize gay marriage will inevitably lead to pressure on the courts to treat these different kinds of families as equally suitable for child-rearing, and that just defies common sense. It takes a man and woman to make the brat in the first place. That is nature's law. It isn't bigotry to recognize the facts of human biology.

I think your assumptions as to which family model is superior is very collectivist in it's face. One of my neighbors was part of a Lesbian family, and their were better parents then MANY of the heterosexual families I have seen.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I think your assumptions as to which family model is superior is very collectivist in it's face. One of my neighbors was part of a Lesbian family, and their were better parents then MANY of the heterosexual families I have seen.

You've met one lesbian family who in your own personal opinion was better than the heterosexual families you have seen. There's an airtight argument if I've ever seen one.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

And how many homosexual family homes have you been in?

The point is, that I feel his ASSumption that every heterosexual home is going to be a better enviroment for children is completely off base.

Most of that propaganda is perpetuated because of the idea that homosexual behavior can be taught, or is chosen.

People do not biologically choose who they are attracted to. And someone cannot choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender. This is an utter fallacy.

 

[TurtleBurger]

And how many homosexual family homes have you been in?

The point is, that I feel his ASSumption that every heterosexual home is going to be a better enviroment for children is completely off base.

Most of that propaganda is perpetuated because of the idea that homosexual behavior can be taught, or is chosen.

People do not biologically choose who they are attracted to. And someone cannot choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender. This is an utter fallacy.

Whether gays are better parents or not is an entirely subjective question. The real question is, would you force religious adoption agencies to place children with a homosexual family even if it was against the agency's moral beliefs?

 

[dannno]

Whether gays are better parents or not is an entirely subjective question. The real question is, would you force religious adoption agencies to place children with a homosexual family even if it was against the agency's moral beliefs?

No, but that's irrelevant. I know that is what happened in Massachusetts, but it was wrong.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Neil..are you gay? tones

 

[dannno]

Neil..are you gay? tones

I doubt he is, could be though.

Ok, so advocates for homosexuals generally say that they can't help it, they were born gay.

Then you have people who are against homosexuality who say that you can in fact choose who you are attracted to... but I know I can't.. I'm attracted to girls. If I could suddenly choose to be attracted to guys, then I would understand the argument that people can choose to be straight or gay.. but I can't understand that argument Therefore I side with the homosexual advocates who say 'they were born that way' cause I was born straight and I can't change that.




Edit:

Most of that propaganda is perpetuated because of the idea that homosexual behavior can be taught, or is chosen.

People do not biologically choose who they are attracted to. And someone cannot choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender. This is an utter fallacy.

So, you don't have to be gay to come to that conclusion, was my point, for Tones..

 

[youngbuck]

neil..are you gay? Tones

hahahaha

 

[SeanEdwards]

that every heterosexual home is going to be a better enviroment for children is completely off base.

Go read my post again. I said no such thing. Stop making strawmen to fight.

Most of that propaganda is perpetuated because of the idea that homosexual behavior can be taught, or is chosen.

People do not biologically choose who they are attracted to. And someone cannot choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender. This is an utter fallacy.

More fucking strawmen. Did I say a damn thing about teaching children to be gay? I'm concerned with children being able to experience a family structure that is compatible with the reproductive organs given to them by nature. I'm concerned with them being able to form "normal" relationships with both a mother and father, you know, those two seperate genders that are equally essential elements of human society. Removing either gender from the child-rearing environment creates an unnatural situation that implictly denies the child the opportunity to form parent/child relationships with people of both genders.

And I think it's appropriate to ask you individually, did you get an opportunity to know both a mother and a father as a child? And if you did, then what makes you think you have ANY right to pass judgment on whether denying that opportunity to others is significant or not?

I was denied the opportunity to know a father. And I don't think it was a good thing. I don't think the fact that my mother kept me clothed and fed fulfilled all the needs of a boy to have an adult male role model as a caregiver.

 

[Hiki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmAGBbOmas

I think we need some P&T here.

 

[jmdrake]

Dr. Paul believes in marriage between a man and a woman.

However, he believes it should be left to the state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage."

Yeah, and Ron Paul went on to say that if he was in a state legislature he would vote AGAINST gay marriage. But please don't point out the facts about Ron Paul's Christian values to Chuck Baldwin haters. It will just make them mad. The fact is Joe Biden said marriage is between a man and a woman, Sarah Palin said it, Ron Paul has said it but it's only a problem (in some people's eyes) that Chuck Baldwin said it.

Anyhow, this thread is silly. If you don't like Baldwin vote for Barr (or Nader, or McKinney or freaking write in Ron Paul if you must even though in many states (like mine) such votes won't even be counted since Dr. Paul made no attempt to be on the ballot.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Neil..are you gay? tones

Nope.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

=SeanEdwards;1794280]Go read my post again. I said no such thing. Stop making strawmen to fight.



More fucking strawmen. Did I say a damn thing about teaching children to be gay? I'm concerned with children being able to experience a family structure that is compatible with the reproductive organs given to them by nature. I'm concerned with them being able to form "normal" relationships with both a mother and father, you know, those two seperate genders that are equally essential elements of human society. Removing either gender from the child-rearing environment creates an unnatural situation that implictly denies the child the opportunity to form parent/child relationships with people of both genders.

And I think it's appropriate to ask you individually, did you get an opportunity to know both a mother and a father as a child? And if you did, then what makes you think you have ANY right to pass judgment on whether denying that opportunity to others is significant or not?

I was denied the opportunity to know a father. And I don't think it was a good thing. I don't think the fact that my mother kept me clothed and fed fulfilled all the needs of a boy to have an adult male role model as a caregiver.

Yes, you did say such a thing.

If a judge is making the ruling, then they should base that ruling on the best interests of the child, which will almost always lead to placement with a heterosexual parent. I do not want the courts to evaluate as equal an otherwise suitable heterosexual family with a homosexual family. The homosexual family, barring any other considerations, is always an inferior setting for raising children, and the courts should recognize that fact.

This is you saying exactly what I said you did. No straw men. That straw man thing is getting tired.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Yeah, and Ron Paul went on to say that if he was in a state legislature he would vote AGAINST gay marriage. But please don't point out the facts about Ron Paul's Christian values to Chuck Baldwin haters. It will just make them mad. The fact is Joe Biden said marriage is between a man and a woman, Sarah Palin said it, Ron Paul has said it but it's only a problem (in some people's eyes) that Chuck Baldwin said it.

Anyhow, this thread is silly. If you don't like Baldwin vote for Barr (or Nader, or McKinney or freaking write in Ron Paul if you must even though in many states (like mine) such votes won't even be counted since Dr. Paul made no attempt to be on the ballot.

Regards,

John M. Drake

It's a problem that any false dogma makes you restrict other people's life style.
Go read the book "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. Should keep you busy.

 

[D.H.]

This idea is outdated because it doesn't reflect the world we live in today. It has nothing to do with religion or my moral opinion. The idea of marriage between a "man or a woman" is moot because THAT isn't even happening. The last thing we should be worrying about is gays.

Just that politicians are making that a divisive issue shows how out of touch they are. I thought they were supposed to be representing "We The People"

Here's the people in 2008.... Almost half the population, 44% is single They are not even married and there are NO LAWS recognizing them and their numbers grow every year (in fact that could deserve it's own thread so I won't get too OT)
Of that 44%, 54% of women are single for the first time in our history.

Our world is changing around us folks, whether we like it or not. If politicians want to stay relevant they need to address this and quit worrying about who's marrying who and start living in 2008. Single people are the largest voting block in this country and these guys are concerned about restricting marriage between gays? Pretty soon they will be glad anyone is getting married. LOL They are so out of touch they are a parody of themselves. NOT ONE person running even knows who their electorate is! We are facing the worst economy our country has ever seen on a landscape now where most of the players are on their own financially. This whole country is a joke.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...cts_for_features_special_editions/012633.html

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's a problem that any false dogma makes you restrict other people's life style.
Go read the book "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. Should keep you busy.

You mean this guy?

...."he has stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remains a "democratic Socialist.""

...."Hitchens joined "a small but growing post-Trotskyite Luxemburgist sect."[7] He became a correspondent for the magazine International Socialism,[8] which was published by the International Socialists, the forerunners of today's British Socialist Workers Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

[DAFTEK]

Why all the last minute BALDWIN ATTACKS recently on the forum? There are so many retarded threads anti Baldwin these past few days!

I cant wait to vote in an hour to get this behind me and take a vacation from this stupid forum, all my Ron Paul friends warned me how stupid this place has become and to stay away.. I might just do that after my vote today!

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Rather then calling them stupid threads and just attacking the people participating, maybe you should give a good solid intellectual counter argument?

My purpose was to make sure people knew the truth about Baldwin and the Constitution Party. They can make their own decision after that.

I am worried that the future of our movement will turn into a theocratic movement. If this happens, we will undoubtedly split. Gays will have no where to go in the freedom movement. Non-christians will have nowhere to go. For some reason the prevailing attitude is that these people don't matter. And I think that shows signs that we are losing our way. Fast.

I really wish Barr wasn't such a douche. Because before Ron Paul "supported Chuck Baldwin's candidacy" people who didn't agree with Chuck Baldwin had an alternative.

(Not for me, I think Barr is a theocrat too)