California S.C. upholds gay marriage ban...

[RxOnco]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24K01&show_article=1

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-*** marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed..."

I guess both sides can claim victory. Either way, this will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Ordie]

California planted the seed, now other states are taking the lead in allowing same *** marriages.

It's just a matter of time.

(Did anyone notice the banner ad?)

[RxOnco]

California planted the seed, now other states are taking the lead in allowing same *** marriages...

I see it as just the opposite. Before California, there were no "bans" on gay marriage. Now, just look:

http://www.washblade.com/blog/images/nprmap.png

[LineDoggie]

California planted the seed, now other states are taking the lead in allowing same *** marriages.

It's just a matter of time.

(Did anyone notice the banner ad?)


Pace university? what about it?

[Ordie]

Pace university? what about it?

I got the Gay Singles ad.

[Ordie]

I see it as just the opposite. Before California, there were no "bans" on gay marriage. Now, just look:

http://www.washblade.com/blog/images/nprmap.png

Not as black and white as you wish.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/gaymarriage5.jpg

[hsh2]

I got the Gay Singles ad.

What sites do you usually surf?:lol:

Seriously though, if you're using FireFox, get an addon named "FlashBlock". It blocks all the annoying flash banners/ads automatically.

Best thing since sliced bread really.

[RxOnco]

Not as black and white as you wish...

Uh...those two maps are virtually the same. And yes, I share the opinion of what is apparently the vast majority.

[Ordie]

Uh...those two maps are virtually the same. And yes, I share the opinion of what is apparently the vast majority.

It is the role of government to protect the minority from the majority.

[Invisigoth]

With divorce rates among hetero******s through the roof I see how important it is to protect the sanctity of marriage. Good job california S.C.

[Lasse]

I see no reason why it should be banned. But then again, I don't live in a country where you are oppressed because you have a ****** orientation that the Government doesn't support.

[SBL]

I see no reason why it should be banned. But then again, I don't live in a country where you are oppressed because you have a ****** orientation that the Government doesn't support.
"Oppressed"rofl

[RxOnco]

It's the people that don't support it; thus, the government doesn't support it. And I'd hardly call it "oppression."

[Lasse]

If there is a discussion about it, means that some people want do, but isn't allowed to. It's not like they want to take over the world or kill someone, they just want to be a part of a tradition where you promises your "better half" that you'll love, protect etc. forever (+ legal rights).

[RxOnco]

If there is a discussion about it, means that some people want do, but isn't allowed to. It's not like they want to take over the world or kill someone, they just want to be a part of a tradition where you promises your "better half" that you'll love, protect etc. forever (+ legal rights).

They're welcome to start their own "traditions"...(- legal rights)

[Lasse]

They're welcome to start their own "traditions"...(- legal rights)
Of course they are, as every other citizen. But I'd imagine as Christians (?) they would want a proper marriage and the same respect as non-gay marriages.

Question: Could a gay couple travel to say NJ, get legally married and live in California with full merrital (sp?) rights?

[California Joe]

Phew, good thing. Since we started letting homos get married up here in Vermont it's complete bedlam. The cows have quit giving milk, Ben and Jerrys are going under, maple trees stopped producing sap...all the plants in my garden died. It's like Armageddon I tells ya.

Oh yeah, it may have just been the frost we had last night that f*cked up my garden but you never know....

[Hispeed1]

Phew, good thing. Since we started letting homos get married up here in Vermont it's complete bedlam. The cows have quit giving milk, Ben and Jerrys are going under, maple trees stopped producing sap...all the plants in my garden died. It's like Armageddon I tells ya.
Oh yeah, it may have just been the frost we had last night that f*cked up my garden but you never know....

Its the beginning of the end...

I'm glad the S.C. in the People's Republik of Kalifornia upheld that. A vote was made and a majority of the people opposed ghey marriage.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I would have thought it was the gardeners skills that killed the garden more then anything.

[Kilgor]

With divorce rates among hetero******s through the roof I see how important it is to protect the sanctity of marriage. Good job california S.C.

ha.

whats a divorce today ?
A $5 fee and a rubber stamp.

[California Joe]

I would have thought it was the gardeners skills that killed the garden more then anything.

Shut it you drop bear f*cker. It was a frost.

[Ordie]

A vote was made and a majority of the people opposed ghey marriage.

Incorrect

It was the majority of voters at 52% of the vote.
That equates to 7 million voters in a state of 36 million.

Therefore it is not the case that the majority of the people oppose gay marriage.

[shocker1]

I got the Gay Singles ad.
Ads are now tailored to specific IP's.

[PeterRJG]

ha.

whats a divorce today ?
A $5 fee and a rubber stamp.

I wish. It maybe that in la la land somewhere, but not in Australia.

And I get Albanian singles ads.

[Ordie]

Ads are now tailored to specific IP's.

I'd bet you get NASCAR ads and Ronco products.

[I can't think of a name]

It is the role of government to protect the minority from the majority.

Where does it say that?

[I can't think of a name]

Incorrect

It was the majority of voters at 52% of the vote.
That equates to 7 million voters in a state of 36 million.

Therefore it is not the case that the majority of the people oppose gay marriage.

So you think the government should rule based on what they think the people approve? Not by who shows up to vote? :roll:

[shocker1]

I'd bet you get NASCAR ads and Ronco products.
Naw, I gets them Jewish singles ads. Mah love is Kosher. I gots one of them there dehydrators though. Makes some mean peppercorn venison jerky.

[HollywoodMarine]

To equate gay rights as civil rights is misguided. They are not dying, being denied fundamental rights, or being persecuted in California for being a homo******, and we have "hate crimes" to level that playing field. Besides, being a homo****** doesn't make one a minority or a victim. It makes them gay. They want rights? I say 10% off Vaseline... now get back in the closet!

[Hot Lips]

So you think the government should rule based on what they think the people approve? Not by who shows up to vote? :roll:

Or maybe that the Government should uphold the notion that we're all equal under the law. So long as there is a seperate classification for their marriages, there is inequality.

I'm certain if left to their own devices we have a few states in the union that would have progressed in history much differently if not for this.

Minorities had to fight for the right to marry within their own ranks since they were viewed as property or not as citizens. Then they had to fight to marry other races. Some states wanting to ban citizens from where they were born and raised for daring to marry outside their race. I suppose it's no surprise that witholding equal rights from "homos" is the last battle ground for bigots that feel they've "compromised" on "equality" enough already.

[Jobu]

The government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
Civil unions for everyone under the law. Let marriage be a religious ceremony.

[Hot Lips]

The government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
Civil unions for everyone under the law. Let marriage be a religious ceremony.

And then govern what constitutes a religion instead?

[Jobu]

And then govern what constitutes a religion instead?

They already do that through tax exempt status.

[Parx400]

So you think the government should rule based on what they think the people approve? Not by who shows up to vote? :roll:

Yes,

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

[Hot Lips]

Not quite sure when you are being serious or facetious, Jobu. :) So homo******s can have a religion without interference by the government and therefore marriage ceremonies and you'd support that because the law would only recognize "civil unions" for everyone equally?

[I can't think of a name]

Yes,

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

What gives the government the right to subjectively act on what laws they think are just?

That is why we vote. You are suggesting a undemocratic system lead by some self appointed elite and "enlightened" cadre. We have seen that before over and over.

[I can't think of a name]

Not quite sure when you are being serious or facetious, Jobu. :) So homo******s can have a religion without interference by the government and therefore marriage ceremonies and you'd support that because the law would only recognize "civil unions" for everyone equally?

No, religion is a communal construct. Jobu is suggesting that the government should not be validating any sort of social behavior. Therefor it should not sanction marriages.

If the states were to take this libertarian approach then Marriage would be defined by the given communities it occurs in.

So therefore Gays can form what ever type of union they want. Except they wont have to piggy back on a term the was mostly defined by religions that stand opposed to homo******ity.

Simple concept that does not use to government to slap certain religions in the face.

[Ordie]

So you think the government should rule based on what they think the people approve? Not by who shows up to vote? :roll:

The Civil Rights Act is a good case study.

[Ordie]

The government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
Civil unions for everyone under the law. Let marriage be a religious ceremony.

For once and rare occasion...I agree with Jobu.

[PeterRJG]

The government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
Civil unions for everyone under the law. Let marriage be a religious ceremony.

Totally agree, though what happens when the marriage/civil union fails? Who decides who gets what, who pays for what kid, etc?

Or should we just go libertarian on marriage itself and leave divorce to the state?

[SkyUS]

Totally agree, though what happens when the marriage/civil union fails? Who decides who gets what, who pays for what kid, etc?

Or should we just go libertarian on marriage itself and leave divorce to the state?

I think that all it means is just renaming the "Marriage" as it is now into a "civil union" And leaving the religious celebration, "marriage", not bound to law.

So in effect everything would stay the same in regards to the rules of marriage but all we we actually do is just call it civil unions. Everybody would be equal under the law.

[Desertpilot]

The government should be out of the marriage business altogether.
Civil unions for everyone under the law. Let marriage be a religious ceremony.

+10000 this makes the most sense out of all of the posts in this topic.

[SkyUS]

+10000 this makes the most sense out of all of the posts in this topic.

x2

Makes the most sense. Everybody would be treated equally under the law. And the idea of marriage could be left "pristine" for some staunch folks.

[Hot Lips]

Jobu is suggesting that...

Thanks for letting us know that you speak for Jobu now. I hope he's properly compensating you for your efforts.

[Blue_0]

The country is shifting towards equal rights for all. The states and people who successfully banned gay marriage are going to be remembered in the same light as the people who attempted to prevent equal rights for race based minorities in the 50s. I am rather ashamed of wisconsins current constitutional position on the issue.

-- Bluelight

[RxOnco]

Again...the "struggles" gays face cannot be compared to the plight of the black people during the Civil Rights fight. I don't recall there being a gay section of the bus, a "no gays allowed" sign in restaurant windows, etc...

The fight isn't over the word marriage. You can call it "civil union" if you like. Hell, call it Froot Loops for all I care. I doesn't change the heart of the argument. Should gays be granted the same rights as straights when it comes to benefits, taxes, adoptions, etc... Apparently, many of you say they should. Well, much to your disdain, you're in the minority. Let me add to that to please someone. Of those of us who vote, we (majority of Americans) don't agree that gays should allowed legal marriage.

[Lasse]

I doesn't change the heart of the argument. Should gays be granted the same rights as straights when it comes to benefits, taxes, adoptions, etc...
There 2 people in both gay and heto marriages, so why not? I don't see why they shouldn't get the same benefits and taxes. Just the fact that there are 2 people in both gay and straight should be enough to allow it.

Adoption should be a separate thing, since you are talking about a 3rd part in a marriage\relationship.

[RxOnco]

...Adoption should be a separate thing, since you are talking about a 3rd part in a marriage\relationship.

Welcome...get on board the hate train.

[Lasse]

I just feel that your children should get the best possible childhood possible. If gay couples can prove that they would be just as fit and give the children a proper, balanced childhood, then fine.

There are people in the world which shouldn't have kids, I'd rather see them in the hands of a gay couple rather than being abused or ignored by their parents.

[RxOnco]

And that's where you and I differ, my friend. I don't agree that gays should be allowed to adopt. I'm sure everyone thinks I'm all about hate but it's not about that. The family structure should, in my opinion, be built with a mother and a father. I know it's hard for some to understand, but some like me just don't think it's right.

[Blue_0]

I don't agree that gays should be allowed to adopt.

Certainily you have to consent that a wealthy gay couple could provide a child a better upbringing then a drug addicted single parent in the getto?

I would think you also have to conceed that a gay couple would do a superior job raising a child then the bounce them around uncaring residences until they are adults foster care system?


Just because a person is hetero****** does not mean they will be a superior parent then a gay person. Such an approach simply ignores the reality of hetero****** parents who turn into complete disasters / criminals with thier children.

-- Bluelight

[RxOnco]

Certainily you have to consent that a wealthy gay couple could provide a child a better upbringing then a drug addicted single parent in the getto?...

Nope...I don't think a drug addicted single parent in the ghetto should be able to adopt either.

[PeterRJG]

Nope...I don't think a drug addicted single parent in the ghetto should be able to adopt either.

LOL, I don't think the dude you quoted is talking about an adoptive drug addict single parent.

[Ordie]

Nope...I don't think a drug addicted single parent in the ghetto should be able to adopt either.
Or have an abortion?

[RxOnco]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Blue_0]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What could be wrong about giving a child loving parents, a safe healthy home in the suburbs, and a free shot at a good education? We are talking about the American dream here, and your attitude is preventing both a minority and needy children the means to access it.

-- Bluelight

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Phew, good thing. Since we started letting homos get married up here in Vermont it's complete bedlam. The cows have quit giving milk, Ben and Jerrys are going under, maple trees stopped producing sap...all the plants in my garden died. It's like Armageddon I tells ya.

Oh yeah, it may have just been the frost we had last night that f*cked up my garden but you never know....

Listen, you're not foolin' anybody. I just left that place...there's nobody and nothing up there but retired Fortune 500 corporate raiders, evil trust-funders and wealthy gays driving to-and-fro in their Subarus. It's like Hell's waiting room. Oh sure, it looks nice...but you can year the wind howling across the collective chasm of a thousand unnaturally stretched ani (that's plural for "anus").

As I drove around, I could literally hear Satan laughing and feel his breath on the back of my neck. Have you been to the combination bowling alley/***** bar in White River Junction? Surely such a thing could only exist in the outer regions of Hell itself.

Gosh darn it, out here in the rest of the country, we have to do things, build things, and produce children - we can't have those gays gaying it up all over the place. It causes confusion. We don't have time for that. We don't have time for 3 or 4 kinds of bathrooms for every flavor of transgenderism. We don't live privately in the woods, a quarter mile off the road over a hill. We can totally see each other from the trailer next door all the way down to the Dairy Queen a mile away. There are no trees and it's flat, and it's hot, and we don't want any funny business with the gays.

Things are different in VT and it's scary. Piles of snow still around in May. Two year old cars with terminal rust cancer. Gays getting married. I was watching TV and suddenly I was confronted with the terrifying specter of a couple of rich white gays wearing pastel sweaters, telling me of the joys of gay marriage...all of this withering evil taking place smack in the middle of kid's cartoons mind you....it's like the friggin end times up there. I got so scared I prepared a Rapture Preparedness Kit, with a signed document attesting the fact that even though I was in fact in the area, I was not especially gay.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the CA SC actually allowed the people's will to be implemented - I've gotten so used to our betters just telling us what's good for us that it kind of comes as a shock.

[WCF.KAS]

And that's where you and I differ, my friend. I don't agree that gays should be allowed to adopt. I'm sure everyone thinks I'm all about hate but it's not about that. The family structure should, in my opinion, be built with a mother and a father. I know it's hard for some to understand, but some like me just don't think it's right.

How many people do you know that were raised in gay adoptive households?

So some kid should not be put in a supportive, loving home because your daddy told you that when 2 men kiss jesus sheds a tear....

You probably think gay adoption is the only way gays can "recruit".....

Do you have any gay or lesbian friends or family?
Because that opinion is usually taken by people with about 0.0 contact with actual gay people.

Back on topic of the thread, there's still what is it 18k gay marriages that are still legal in CA, I wonder if anyone's campaigning to get those ones annulled..

[RxOnco]

How many people do you know that were raised in gay adoptive households?

So some kid should not be put in a supportive, loving home because your daddy told you that when 2 men kiss jesus sheds a tear....

You probably think gay adoption is the only way gays can "recruit".....

Do you have any gay or lesbian friends or family?
Because that opinion is usually taken by people with about 0.0 contact with actual gay people.

Back on topic of the thread, there's still what is it 18k gay marriages that are still legal in CA, I wonder if anyone's campaigning to get those ones annulled..

None.

I didn't know you know my daddy! Really, he never said such a thing. Contrary to your belief, we biggots can actually form our own opinions and thoughts. Daddy thanks you for thinking of him though.

No...I think they "recruit" just fine without adoption.

No gay family, thank goodness. I've had gay co-workers. Couldn't really call them friends as I had no contact with them outside of the workplace. I had many of these types of conversations with them. The irony is, they seemed more understanding of my point of view than some of you.

I don't forsee any impending annullment movement seeing as how the ban came after the marriages took place.


By the way 2Sheds, tongue in cheek as it may have been...funny post.

[WCF.KAS]

None.
Exactly

I didn't know you know my daddy! Really, he never said such a thing. Contrary to your belief, we biggots can actually form our own opinions and thoughts. Daddy thanks you for thinking of him though.
I made a generalization about how you were raised because you made a generalization about how you feel thousands of American couples should not be allowed to raise children. Maybe if you had any life experience with gay couples be them friends or family in the adoption process you would see the error in that belief. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you would fall into the pro life category of the abortion debate. What's wrong with increased capacity to adopt kids that can't be raised by there original parents? Especially if these adoptive parents are educated responsible proffesionals with enough love in their hearts and money in their accounts to raise a child comfortably?

No...I think they "recruit" just fine without adoption.
Yup genetics are a wild thing my friend..
No gay family, thank goodness. I've had gay co-workers. Couldn't really call them friends as I had no contact with them outside of the workplace. I had many of these types of conversations with them. The irony is, they seemed more understanding of my point of view than some of you.
Well if had grown up gay I would probably be used to people believing I was inherently immoral, bless um for being understanding,but I however don't see you every day in a workplace setting so I guess I can be a little less undiplomatic.

I don't forsee any impending annullment movement seeing as how the ban came after the marriages took place.


By the way 2Sheds, tongue in cheek as it may have been...funny post.

At the end of the day, how does it hurt you or the nation?

[RxOnco]

At the end of the day, how does it hurt you or the nation?

It doesn't physically hurt anyone. Fundamentally, or philosophically, I feel it hurts us all by destroying the family unit as we know it.

On the flip side...how does it hurt you or the nation to leave to the voters?

[WCF.KAS]

It doesn't physically hurt anyone. Fundamentally, or philosophically, I feel it hurts us all by destroying the family unit as we know it.

On the flip side...how does it hurt you or the nation to leave to the voters?

Destroying the family unit as we know it?

Really, oh yea I forgot that once gay adoption is legal at a national level, marriage between man and woman will be outlawed and the gay pride parades will be marching down you're block 24/7

By that same standard working mothers and interacial couples destroyed the American family unit........
Are you for a ban on divorce as well?

State ban's on gay marriage take good couples out of the adoption pool, leaving more children in our dismal social service's custody.

Why should a child be deprived of a loving household because the concept of homo******ity makes you uncomfortable?

Please don't use the "slippery slope" argument, gay adoption doesn't lead to bestiality, poligamy, chaos etc unless its during one of Pat Robertson's wet dreams...

[RxOnco]

You seem to hold this topic pretty dear.

Look...we both share completely differing opinions on this issue. The only difference is I'm not trying to sway your views. Bottom line is: I don't agree with it, I'm glad that there are bans, I definately don't think a child should be raised into the lifestyle, and so on, and so on. Your little left-wing one-liners aren't going to change the thoughts of the millions which voted for these bans.
Here's a newsflash for ya's...Your view isn't the end all, be all. There's lots of us out here that have our own opinions on things. Sometimes people might not agree with you. One day you'll come to accept that. In the mean time, as we the majority continue to instill our family values on this country...you'll have to just continue to march or protest or whatever.

[WCF.KAS]

You seem to hold this topic pretty dear.

Look...we both share completely differing opinions on this issue. The only difference is I'm not trying to sway your views. Bottom line is: I don't agree with it, I'm glad that there are bans, I definately don't think a child should be raised into the lifestyle, and so on, and so on. Your little left-wing one-liners aren't going to change the thoughts of the millions which voted for these bans.
Here's a newsflash for ya's...Your view isn't the end all, be all. There's lots of us out here that have our own opinions on things. Sometimes people might not agree with you. One day you'll come to accept that. In the mean time, as we the majority continue to instill our family values on this country...you'll have to just continue to march or protest or whatever.

Yea it's dear to me because I actually know both the children of gay adoptions (all of whom are straight suprise suprise) and gay couples who have adopted.
You have clearly no experience with this issue so you're opinion seems to stem from whether you recognize it as so or not, some sort of bigotry.

majority opinions change, last poll I checked 46 percent of American's approved of gay adoption, up from 38 percent in 1999.


I really don't give a **** about ban's as much I do homophobe's hiding behind "family values".
I think you might care more about fighting a culture war then giving kids stable households and a good upbringing.

[RxOnco]

I understand opinions and majority changes. I'm sure, eventually, this will change too. Hopefully, not for a long time.
Truthfully, it won't affect me one bit either way. It's more of a symbolic thing. Much like abortion, there are certain things one will hold sacred. This happens to be one of those topics where my opinion will never change.
Do I hate gays? I've said it in other "gay" threads. No. I'm not gonna go gay bashing after work. I work and live just fine side by side. The fundamental difference between me and you is I feel it's a lifestyle of choice, and you feel it's genetics.

Agree to disagree...Now can we have a totally hetro man hug?

[WCF.KAS]

I understand opinions and majority changes. I'm sure, eventually, this will change too. Hopefully, not for a long time.
Truthfully, it won't affect me one bit either way. It's more of a symbolic thing. Much like abortion, there are certain things one will hold sacred. This happens to be one of those topics where my opinion will never change.
Do I hate gays? I've said it in other "gay" threads. No. I'm not gonna go gay bashing after work. I work and live just fine side by side. The fundamental difference between me and you is I feel it's a lifestyle of choice, and you feel it's genetics.

Agree to disagree...Now can we have a totally hetro man hug?

Agreed....It's a hetro man hug when you solidly slap the other dude on the back 2-3 times...no longer than 3 seconds of contact......

I just wanted to get to you to admit that your beliefs about gay adoption stem from feeling that homo******ity is in itself an immoral action.

Thats a whole other thread right there

[JJC]

This is just a single battle that was lost, but the war is far from lost. In addition, the near future is much more brighter for gay rights than what the racial minorities had to endure for a century before real change came about.

California propositions come and go and only time and a well organized effort will overturn prop 8. Just because the conservative base organized better during the voting doesn't mean that a greater majority came out to vote on the prop 8 issue. Many people didn't even know what the hell it was about.

Gay marriage should be achieved through legislature and public opinion and not through reliance on courts too much. In some cases, the courts are ineffective without public support. Brown v. Board of Ed is a good example.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is just a single battle that was lost, but the war is far from lost. In addition, the near future is much more brighter for gay rights than what the racial minorities had to endure for a century before real change came about.


Well that may be true. Society changes over time, that's for sure. But I have to wonder, considering the fine mess we find ourselves currently in, if our reach hasn't exceeded our grasp. Our artificial constructs tend to fall over at some point. Perhaps we can't achieve our dreams. Maybe we can't have everything. It's quite possible that our civilization will ultimately unravel if the artificial controls we create in the name of egalitarianism collapse as a result of the sheer weight of the mechanisms required to hold them up. At some point the bill comes due and good intentions won't pay the bill.



I just wanted to get to you to admit that your beliefs about gay adoption stem from feeling that homo******ity is in itself an immoral action.


hmm well I can't speak for RxOnco, but for me, there's lots of things I don't like that I don't consider immoral. Things like those subscription cards that fall out of magazines, cellphones with proprietary charging jacks, and nose picking.

[Hot Lips]

Hell, call it Froot Loops for all I care. I doesn't change the heart of the argument. Should gays be granted the same rights as straights when it comes to benefits, taxes, adoptions, etc... Apparently, many of you say they should.

As law abiding taxpayers, yes, they should be entitled to the same rights as other American adults.

[Zoomie]

As law abiding taxpayers, yes, they should be entitled to the same rights as other American adults.
But 'whites' aren't afforded the same 'rights' that the minorities enjoy, so where's the outrage over that?

[Hot Lips]

I'm sure everyone thinks I'm all about hate but it's not about that.

Judging from your posts here and in race related conversations, personally I think that's a pretty fair assessment. All other excuses just comes across as smoke and mirrors to mask this simple reality, IMO.

[Hot Lips]

Or have an abortion?

Oh no, Ordie! Force the child to be born by all means then all but turn your back on it once it is here... well, except maybe to do things like deprive it of loving parents.


Destroying the family unit as we know it?


Yeah, you know the family unit were 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.



Sociologists believe that childlessness is also a common cause of divorce. The absence of children leads to loneliness and weariness and even in the United States, at least 66 per cent of all divorced couples are childless.


And yet the family unit as we know it would seemingly rather divorce than adopt one of the 600,000 child waiting to be loved... or the 1.2 million people like RxOnco want to force to be born.

Why on earth would we let law abiding taxpayers provide any of these children with a loving home. Maybe we can send them all to Ireland to work off some of the debt Catholic orders there are faced with.

[Hot Lips]

But 'whites' aren't afforded the same 'rights' that the minorities enjoy, so where's the outrage over that?

Oh you'll find it if you dig through posts, but I can at least acknowledge that whites benefited for too long by holding others back and created the situation we have today. Particularly white males that created a society in which success was determined by education, life, and business experience... then ensured for decades that women and minority groups were prevented from acquiring equal education, life, and business experience. The results of generations of such discrimination and the impact it has had on society do not change overnight. We're at a stage where things are on a path towards balancing out. I for one would like to keep moving in that direction. Some people sound more like they want revisit the "good ol days" rather than achieve true equality.