Log in

View Full Version : Sarah Palin Can't Take a Joke



Pages : 1 [2] 3

bem401
09-10-2008, 12:13 PM
This gets ridiculous. Straight guys shower with gays in high school, college, at health clubs etc. etc. It's ONLY in the military where everybody volunteered TO DO A JOB and where the CMJ applies that these poor, innocent, little boys are going to get "ogled" ?????

Could I please read one argument; just ONE, against gays in the military that wasn't used against blacks by segregationists or that is grounded in common sense and REAL WORLD experience ?

Not saying the reaction to gays in the barracks is right, just saying I think it could lead to problems. Maybe I'm not giving the recruits enough credit though.

Zia_Abq
09-10-2008, 12:55 PM
What they want to do is distract people from the real issues because they would lose most of those arguments. Another day talking about "lips on a pig" is another day that they don't have to talk about the mess in Iraq, or the train wreck of the economy, or high energy prices, or .......

:yes:

Obama’s response

Havana
09-10-2008, 01:13 PM
I personally think Sarah Palin is indeed a lipstick wearing pig.

Thank you, Obama.

Eric Stoner
09-10-2008, 01:18 PM
I personally think Sarah Palin is indeed a lipstick wearing pig.

Thank you, Obama.

So is Hillary. And her physique is a lot more porcine than Palin's.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 01:25 PM
Not saying the reaction to gays in the barracks is right, just saying I think it could lead to problems. Maybe I'm not giving the recruits enough credit though.


Oh Please....stop ooooozing ingnorance and bigotry.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 01:29 PM
So is Hillary. And her physique is a lot more porcine than Palin's.



Sarah Palin is the one who refers to HERSELF as a "dog" with lipstick......good thing makeup does wonders for the bigot.


http://i34.tinypic.com/b3tn6b.jpg

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 05:53 PM
This is freaking awesome......I'll be so happy when Obama crushes John the bigot McCain.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg&feature=related

FBR
09-10-2008, 07:51 PM
This is freaking awesome......I'll be so happy when Obama crushes John the bigot McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg&feature=related

LOL Was the video pro Obama? I assume so but I couldn't tell. Him bustin' a move on Ellen wasn't that impressive. I mean, I'm an old white guy and I can dance as good as him if that is all he's got :)

FBR

JML
09-10-2008, 07:57 PM
Oh Please....stop ooooozing ingnorance and bigotry.So you are saying that women would have no problems with sharing their living quarters with men? Because situation with homosexuals and heterosexuals sharing same quarters is exactly same as women and men sharing quarters.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 09:30 PM
So you are saying that women would have no problems with sharing their living quarters with men? Because situation with homosexuals and heterosexuals sharing same quarters is exactly same as women and men sharing quarters.




WTF? Are you homophoboic? It's always about the bedroom and your unfounded fears


DO NOT PUT A PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS UP FOR POPULAR VOTE.....PERIOD...NOT EVER IN THE UNITED STATES.

sapphiregirl
09-10-2008, 09:33 PM
WORD~[/URL]

------------------------------
By Andrew Sullivan



So it's come to this. The full context (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/10/mccainmariotamagetty.jpg) of Barack Obama's quote is as follows:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and [U]Karl Rove (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/karl_rove/index.html?inline=nyt-per)-style politics. That’s just calling the same thing something different.”


With a laugh, he added: “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
We are being asked to believe that he called Sarah Palin a pig. If the people making that accusation have half a brain they know it's not true. This is not a question of interpretation. It is a fact. So we now find out again that John McCain is prepared to tell an absolute lie - in public, verifiable, uncontestable.
He does not have the minimal public integrity to be president of the United States.
Game this all you want; distort it all you want; bamboozle the morons at cable news all you want; win however many news cycles you want.
This claim is absurd on its face, like the Palin nomination to begin with. Absurd. And you can now tell who on the right has even a scintilla of intellectual honesty. That's all this episode is about: another tail-spin in the death throes of the Republican party.
My only advice to Obama: stay calm; stay cool; focus on the issues; behave like the president you want to be. They are trying to get into your head. But you are so much smarter and more decent than they are. Patience. And steel.

Richard_Head
09-10-2008, 10:50 PM
^^^Here's another good article (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html) by Andrew Sullivan.


(snip)"For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?" (end snip)

(snip)"McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it."(end snip)

Optimist
09-10-2008, 11:10 PM
It's funny, Richard, I was saying this to my Mom today. The more I dig into John Mc Cain record attitudes and style the less I respect him. He's just a fairly good actor but he doesn't have the vision or integrity to be a leader.

bem401
09-11-2008, 06:04 AM
Oh Please....stop ooooozing ingnorance and bigotry.

How am I being ignorant and bigoted?

I'm saying some people in the military (of which I'm not a member, BTW )will have a problem with it. That is not the same thing as saying they are justified in feeling that way. To deny this would be a difficult pill for some soldiers to swallow is akin to living in Fantasyland. In a perfect world, there'd be no problem with such a policy, but this is not a perfect world.

And BTW, you never win debates by resorting to insults and name-calling. Isn't that the same sort of distraction from the issues as we're all accusing the campaigns of doing?

JML
09-11-2008, 06:12 AM
WTF? Are you homophoboic? It's always about the bedroom and your unfounded fears


DO NOT PUT A PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS UP FOR POPULAR VOTE.....PERIOD...NOT EVER IN THE UNITED STATES.
Amusing instead of answering to my question you started name calling and avoided issue. This is funny coming from liberal who claims that conservatives avoid talking about issues.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 09:00 AM
How am I being ignorant and bigoted?

I'm saying some people in the military (of which I'm not a member, BTW )will have a problem with it. That is not the same thing as saying they are justified in feeling that way. To deny this would be a difficult pill for some soldiers to swallow is akin to living in Fantasyland. In a perfect world, there'd be no problem with such a policy, but this is not a perfect world.

And BTW, you never win debates by resorting to insults and name-calling. Isn't that the same sort of distraction from the issues as we're all accusing the campaigns of doing?

There were lots of folks in the military who didn't want integrated units and even more Neanderthals who didn't want women to serve. Fortunately, they had to get used to it. So it should be with gays. If it's a REAL problem for some and I'm sure it will be, especially for a few super macho dorks in the Marines, let them resign or retire.
The average soldier, sailor, airman or Marine has grown up in an era fairly tolerant of gays and have no problem serving alongside them. It's time the generals and admirals caught up.

Optimist
09-11-2008, 09:03 AM
There were lots of folks in the military who didn't want integrated units and even more neanderthals who didn't want women to serve. Fortunately, they had to get used to it. So it should be with gays. If it's a REAL problem for some and I'm sure it will be, especially for a few super macho dorks in the Marines, let thme resign or retire.

So true! If they are so fragile that gayness scares them they probably are too fragile for battle! LOL!

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 09:04 AM
So you are saying that women would have no problems with sharing their living quarters with men? Because situation with homosexuals and heterosexuals sharing same quarters is exactly same as women and men sharing quarters.

Please explain how the two are equivalent. And btw, men and women serve on ships together.

bem401
09-11-2008, 09:14 AM
. If it's a REAL problem for some and I'm sure it will be, .

That's all I ever said.

It's OK as long as it doesn't compromise military effectiveness/morale/strength.

JML
09-11-2008, 09:19 AM
Please explain how the two are equivalent. And btw, men and women serve on ships together.
Women and men don't share same living quarters because many people find it uncomfortable to change clothes, go to showers and ect while member opposite has a chance observe it due sexual connotations. Similarly some people find it uncomfortable to be state of undress while member of same sex who is intrested in his/her own gender has chance observe it.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 09:29 AM
Women and men don't share same living quarters because many people find it uncomfortable to change clothes, go to showers and ect while member opposite has a chance observe it due sexual connotations. Similarly some people find it uncomfortable to be state of undress while member of same sex who is intrested in his/her own gender has chance observe it.

If it makes them that "uncomfortable", let them either grow up or leave the military.

bem401
09-11-2008, 09:33 AM
If it makes them that "uncomfortable", let them either grow up or leave the military.

And what IF that means thousands leave or, despite their best efforts, can't "grow up" to the point where it affects the quality of the military? Is being politically correct worth it under those circumstances?

JML
09-11-2008, 09:36 AM
If it makes them that "uncomfortable", let them either grow up or leave the military.If US Army were to announce that from this day men and women will share quarters and if someone does not like it they should either grow up or leave the military nearly everyone from this forum would scream that it is sexist and sexual discrimination.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 09:41 AM
If US Army were to announce that from this day men and women will share quarters and if someone does not like it they should either grow up or leave the military nearly everyone from this forum would scream that it is sexist and sexual discrimination.

I'm NOT the one suggesting that a unisex military would be equivalent. You are.

The fact is that gays and straights have shared quarters; showers and foxholes since the Revolutionary War.

Many countries have gays openly serving without ANY noticeable negative effects.

cinammonkisses
09-11-2008, 09:46 AM
would you be comfortable sharing your barracks with a bunch of guys, changing and showering in front of them if you thought they were eyeballing you?

I'm just saying an open and noticeable gay presence would make a lot of soldiers uneasy, IMO.



You're not going to like this, but I have a problem with gays in the military. I think they could be damaging to the morale. No soldier would want to share a barracks with guys who might find him sexually attractive. It would lead to problems. And separate barracks would never fly.
OMFG just because someone is gay doesn't mean they want to hump EVERY DAMN BODY they come in contact with. Gimme a break! Just because I'm a lesbian and I'm a stripper I guess also means I check out the girls constantly while I'm at work..I mean hell I get to see them naked and topless. Do I, hell no because I'm at work! Damn, you act as if gays/lesbians have this uncontrollable sexual desires that they just can't stop and be a human or something.

If you're in the military, you're there to do your job. And FTR: There are alot of gay males in the military. All gay men are not the loud, flamboyant types that are usually stereotyped as the majority.


No, I said, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, straight adoptive parents are preferable to gay adoptive parents. If there is a child in need of a home, and an otherwise qualified gay couple ready and willing to adopt, go fo it..

Why do you feel that straight adoptive parents are more preferable over gay adoptive parents? If, as you said all other things are equal, why should they (straight couple) be held to a higher regard and viewed as a more acceptable parent?

cinammonkisses
09-11-2008, 09:48 AM
And what IF that means thousands leave or, despite their best efforts, can't "grow up" to the point where it effects the quality of the military? Is being politically correct worth it under those circumastances?
Yes being correct really is worth it in those regards. You could argue the same about having segregation in the military. Once they intergrated thousands could've left then too. Did people leave because they didn't want to share quarters with someone of another race/ethnicity, yeah I'm probably sure they did. But as you can see, the U.S. military has not crumbled.

Gays and lesbians fight for this country and risk their life just like straight soldiers do.

bem401
09-11-2008, 10:00 AM
Yes being correct really is worth it in those regards. You could argue the same about having segregation in the military. Once they intergrated thousands could've left then too. Did people leave because they didn't want to share quarters with someone of another race/ethnicity, yeah I'm probably sure they did. But as you can see, the U.S. military has not crumbled.

Gays and lesbians fight for this country and risk their life just like straight soldiers do.

And should be commended for doing so.

The problem with your argument is that, during the Civil Rights era, soldiers were drafted into the military. They couldn't just leave. Today we have an all-volunteer military. Creating conditions that might discourage some from joining probably isn't a good idea, though the impact of doing so is subject to debate.

bem401
09-11-2008, 10:25 AM
Why do you feel that straight adoptive parents are more preferable over gay adoptive parents?

Personally, I believe a 'traditional" upbringing is preferable to a non-traditional one, all other things being equal. I'm not saying gays make bad parents or anything like that. I just think having traditional parents leaves the kid one less issue to deal with. It's just my opinion. I'm not an activist one way or the other on the subject.

sapphiregirl
09-11-2008, 10:55 AM
Personally, I believe a 'traditional" upbringing is preferable to a non-traditional one, all other things being equal. I'm not saying gays make bad parents or anything like that. I just think having traditional parents leaves the kid one less issue to deal with. It's just my opinion. I'm not an activist one way or the other on the subject.


Your personal opinion on that is just that....A lot of people have personal opinions on blacks etc. Whatever problem you have with it is just that.....YOUR PROBLEM.....it gives you ZERO power to take away someone elses civil right.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 10:57 AM
And should be commended for doing so.

The problem with your argument is that, during the Civil Rights era, soldiers were drafted into the military. They couldn't just leave. Today we have an all-volunteer military. Creating conditions that might discourage some from joining probably isn't a good idea, though the impact of doing so is subject to debate.


Actually, when we had a draft, a lot of straight guys claimed to be gay to get out of serving.

An intelligent approach to permitting gays to serve would NOT make it part of a recruitment campaign. Just announce that gays would no longer be discharged for nothing more than just being gay.

bem401
09-11-2008, 11:08 AM
Your personal opinion on that is just that....A lot of people have personal opinions on blacks etc. Whatever problem you have with it is just that.....YOUR PROBLEM.....it gives you ZERO power to take away someone elses civil right.

Where did I say it was anything other than just my constitutionally-protected opinion?

And how does the fact that I feel that way translate into me trying to deny somebody else's civil rights?

And when did the right to adopt become a civil right? I must have missed that Supreme Court decision.

It seems you feel that if I don't agree with you, I must be some sort of hateful person. There's the real intolerance.

sapphiregirl
09-11-2008, 11:20 AM
Where did I say it was anything other than just my constitutionally-protected opinion?

And how does the fact that I feel that way translate into me trying to deny somebody else's civil rights?

And when did the right to adopt become a civil right? I must have missed that Supreme Court decision.

It seems you feel that if I don't agree with you, I must be some sort of hateful person. There's the real intolerance.



Your personal opinion ooooooooooooooozes judgement, hate, and intolerance..... But that is just my opinion. If you want to be closeminded about it....at least be able to tell me ALL the families you have visited/know who have adopted gay kids to even form a judgement.


----------------------------------------


This teenager was kicked out on the street by her traditional parents but adopted by a woman who is a lesbian that saved her life...I'm sure she would love your personal opinion....quite frankly I think, I would not be surprised if gay couples end up having BETTER marriages and raising more well rounded kids than straight couples....wouldn't that be a kick.
------------

Dear friends,
I'm saddling up for my fifth AIDS/LifeCycle. As many of you know, this past year and half, HIV / AIDS has literally hit home with me. In January 2007, I became the legal guardian of a beautiful teenager, Lexi, who was born with HIV. The sweetest part of this story is that I've been able to personally see the difference your contributions to HIV / AIDS make in the lives a person living with it. When Lexi moved in with me, her viral load was over 160,000 and her Tcells at 27. Thanks to Lexi's incredible will to live, the wonderful people at Camp Kindle, Camp Laurel, East Bay AIDS Clinic and the Downtown Youth Clinic and a new drug called Isentress, Lexi has a new lease on life. Her viral load is undetectable and her Tcells are climbing. She has the prospect of a long and happy life because people like you contributed to programs that help people living with HIV and medical research. Thank you.
This year, I'm riding for my little girl to honor her brave battle against HIV. I look forward to a day when she's old enough and strong enough to ride beside me.
From June 1-7, 2008, I'm bicycling in AIDS/LifeCycle. It's a 7-day, 545-mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to make a world of difference in the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS.
Help me support the San Francisco AIDS Foundation by giving what you can. We'll keep riding until AIDS and HIV are a thing of the past.
xo
Shannon
p.s. That's Lexi and I on the right.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 11:39 AM
Your personal opinion ooooooooooooooozes judgement, hate, and intolerance..... But that is just my opinion. If you want to be closeminded about it....at least be able to tell me ALL the families you have visited/know who have adopted gay kids to even form a judgement.


----------------------------------------


This teenager was kicked out on the street by her traditional parents but adopted by a woman who is a lesbian that saved her life...I'm sure she would love your personal opinion....quite frankly I think, I would not be surprised if gay couples end up having BETTER marriages and raising more well rounded kids than straight couples....wouldn't that be a kick.
------------

Dear friends,
I'm saddling up for my fifth AIDS/LifeCycle. As many of you know, this past year and half, HIV / AIDS has literally hit home with me. In January 2007, I became the legal guardian of a beautiful teenager, Lexi, who was born with HIV. The sweetest part of this story is that I've been able to personally see the difference your contributions to HIV / AIDS make in the lives a person living with it. When Lexi moved in with me, her viral load was over 160,000 and her Tcells at 27. Thanks to Lexi's incredible will to live, the wonderful people at Camp Kindle, Camp Laurel, East Bay AIDS Clinic and the Downtown Youth Clinic and a new drug called Isentress, Lexi has a new lease on life. Her viral load is undetectable and her Tcells are climbing. She has the prospect of a long and happy life because people like you contributed to programs that help people living with HIV and medical research. Thank you.
This year, I'm riding for my little girl to honor her brave battle against HIV. I look forward to a day when she's old enough and strong enough to ride beside me.
From June 1-7, 2008, I'm bicycling in AIDS/LifeCycle. It's a 7-day, 545-mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to make a world of difference in the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS.
Help me support the San Francisco AIDS Foundation by giving what you can. We'll keep riding until AIDS and HIV are a thing of the past.
xo
Shannon
p.s. That's Lexi and I on the right.

In fairness, the research is not in on how children with two gay parents do as opposed to those raised by so-called "straight" parents.( I'm sorry, but I often wonder how they take account of cases where "Dad" is a closet gay and/or "Mom" likes girls.) My guess, based on what little is available is, that there is no appreciable difference.

bem401
09-11-2008, 11:40 AM
Your personal opinion ooooooooooooooozes judgement, hate, and intolerance..... But that is just my opinion. If you want to be closeminded about it....at least be able to tell me ALL the families you have visited/know who have adopted gay kids to even form a judgement.


----------------------------------------


This teenager was kicked out on the street by her traditional parents but adopted by a woman who is a lesbian that saved her life...I'm sure she would love your personal opinion....quite frankly I think, I would not be surprised if gay couples end up having BETTER marriages and raising more well rounded kids that straight couples....wouldn't that be a kick.
------------

Dear friends,
I'm saddling up for my fifth AIDS/LifeCycle. As many of you know, this past year and half, HIV / AIDS has literally hit home with me. In January 2007, I became the legal guardian of a beautiful teenager, Lexi, who was born with HIV. The sweetest part of this story is that I've been able to personally see the difference your contributions to HIV / AIDS make in the lives a person living with it. When Lexi moved in with me, her viral load was over 160,000 and her Tcells at 27. Thanks to Lexi's incredible will to live, the wonderful people at Camp Kindle, Camp Laurel, East Bay AIDS Clinic and the Downtown Youth Clinic and a new drug called Isentress, Lexi has a new lease on life. Her viral load is undetectable and her Tcells are climbing. She has the prospect of a long and happy life because people like you contributed to programs that help people living with HIV and medical research. Thank you.
This year, I'm riding for my little girl to honor her brave battle against HIV. I look forward to a day when she's old enough and strong enough to ride beside me.
From June 1-7, 2008, I'm bicycling in AIDS/LifeCycle. It's a 7-day, 545-mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to make a world of difference in the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS.
Help me support the San Francisco AIDS Foundation by giving what you can. We'll keep riding until AIDS and HIV are a thing of the past.
xo
Shannon
p.s. That's Lexi and I on the right.

OK, so you gave me two incidences of where a gay person adopted a child and made a huge difference in that child's life. I say that's wonderful. I do not oppose that one bit.

I just think that when an infant is put up for adoption, a traditional pair of parents is the ideal scenario. I'm not being hateful, judgmental or intolerant when thinking this. I'll admit that gay parents can be great parents as well, but having gay parents might prove complicated down the road. I'm thinking strictly about the child here.

Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 11:42 AM
Where did I say it was anything other than just my constitutionally-protected opinion?

And how does the fact that I feel that way translate into me trying to deny somebody else's civil rights?

And when did the right to adopt become a civil right? I must have missed that Supreme Court decision.

It seems you feel that if I don't agree with you, I must be some sort of hateful person. There's the real intolerance.

I think the Supreme Court has left adoption and child custody questions to the various states. That arguably conflicts with some other cases that, inter alia, struck down sodomy statutes

bem401
09-11-2008, 11:54 AM
^^^

I'm just recoiling at being called judgmental, hateful, and intolerant when nothing I said was judgmental, hateful, or intolerant.

This is not an issue I have a vested interest in.

I find steak preferable to seafood. It doesn't mean I hate seafood or think it shouldn't be on the menu.

Optimist
09-11-2008, 08:12 PM
If you're in the military, you're there to do your job. And FTR: There are alot of gay males in the military. All gay men are not the loud, flamboyant types that are usually stereotyped as the majority.


MOST are not. People don't realize we are everywhere. Gay people and bi-people are everywhere and have always been there. They might as well man up and move on. The fact that they don't know they are surrounded speaks to how normal we are and how uninterested we are in hitting on homophobes. :D

Optimist
09-11-2008, 08:19 PM
I just think that when an infant is put up for adoption, a traditional pair of parents is the ideal scenario. I'm not being hateful, judgmental or intolerant when thinking this. I'll admit that gay parents can be great parents as well, but having gay parents might prove complicated down the road. I'm thinking strictly about the child here.

The only thing that is traditional is adults raising children. All through history adults have raised children whether they were alone or in pairs, whether they were related or unrelated, whether straight or gay. No matter what it takes a village. :P Here in this country there is a beautiful tradition of adults taking over to raise other's kids and it shouldn't be twisted with religious agendas.

Miss_Luscious
09-11-2008, 08:42 PM
The only thing that is traditional is adults raising children. All through history adults have raised children whether they were alone or in pairs, whether they were related or unrelated, whether straight or gay. No matter what it takes a village. :P Here in this country there is a beautiful tradition of adults taking over to raise other's kids and it shouldn't be twisted with religious agendas.

Agreed. What if two people who lived together but were not gay wanted to adopt a child? Maybe two siblings or good friends? Would that be ok? Is it the "OMG GAY SECKS!" part that people are worried about?

bem401
09-12-2008, 06:26 AM
The only thing that is traditional is adults raising children. All through history adults have raised children whether they were alone or in pairs, whether they were related or unrelated, whether straight or gay. No matter what it takes a village. :P


In the optimal case, it doesn't take a village, it takes a family. Unfortunately, the optimal cases are becoming increasingly rare. "It takes a village" is just another way of saying we need big government to provide for us and people needn't be responsible for the consequences of their actions.



Here in this country there is a beautiful tradition of adults taking over to raise other's kids and it shouldn't be twisted with religious agendas.

First off, its not a "tradition". That would mean it is what everyone does or aspires to do.

While it is a beautiful thing that many people (of whatever sexual orientation) are willing and able to raise children needing a home, let's not fool ourselves that its a good thing that kids find themselves in this situation in the first place. Such situations generally arise out of tragedies ( death of parents ) or parental irresponsibility (parents drug-addicted or in jail ) or indifference ( parents just don't want the responsibilty of being parents ). That doesn't diminish the kindness of those willing to provide a home.

For the record, I am not religious and I have not used one religious argument in any of my posts. But since you brought it up, there is a quote in the Bible something to the effect of "man shall not lay down with man and woman shall not lay down with woman" or something like that. While that may be some people's reason for opposing gay adoptions, I only stated that I thought straight adoptions were preferable.

Any person or persons, straight or gay, willing to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a child, particularly a child that is not biologically their's should be praised for their unselfishness.

cinammonkisses
09-12-2008, 07:17 AM
First off, its not a "tradition". That would mean it is what everyone does or aspires to do.

Maybe for you, tradition is not a good word to use in this example. But, for me (I think this is what Optimist was getting at) is that the majority of this family are not brought up with mother and father. Lots of kids are raised by grandparents, step parents, single parents, aunts, cousins etc. It's just not as common to find the birth mother and birth father raising a family together in this day and age.

And, like Optimist I too believe it does take a village..

Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 08:01 AM
Maybe for you, tradition is not a good word to use in this example. But, for me (I think this is what Optimist was getting at) is that the majority of this family are not brought up with mother and father. Lots of kids are raised by grandparents, step parents, single parents, aunts, cousins etc. It's just not as common to find the birth mother and birth father raising a family together in this day and age.

And, like Optimist I too believe it does take a village..

Leaving aside issues of "gay vs straight" there is an avalanch of research that clearly shows that on an economic and educational basis; children raised in TWO-Parent households do MUCH better than those raised by a single parent. That includes single parents with help from the extended family i.e. grandparents; aunts, uncles and siblings. They are far less likely to live in poverty and do much better in school.

So, KNOWING this ( because it is so heavily documented ) then shouldn't we encourage two-parent child rearing even when it means two men or two women doing the parenting ? That is, if we seriously care about the "best interests of the child" ?

bem401
09-12-2008, 08:45 AM
Maybe for you, tradition is not a good word to use in this example. But, for me (I think this is what Optimist was getting at) is that the majority of this family are not brought up with mother and father. Lots of kids are raised by grandparents, step parents, single parents, aunts, cousins etc. It's just not as common to find the birth mother and birth father raising a family together in this day and age.

And, like Optimist I too believe it does take a village..

I'm not so sure its the majority of cases for people that I know but agreed birth mothers and fathers raising the child is becoming increasingly rare, and that is unfortunate for the child. Call it whatever you want, its simply incorrect to calll it a "tradition". I'd argue the exact opposite, that the "tradiotional"way to raise a child is with both birth parents present.

It never used to take a village until all the big entitlement programs came along.

cinammonkisses
09-12-2008, 08:52 AM
I'm not so sure its the majority of cases for people that I know but agreed birth mothers and fathers raising the child is becoming increasingly rare, and that is unfortunate for the child. Call it whatever you want, its simply incorrect to calll it a "tradition". I'd argue the exact opposite, that the "tradiotional"way to raise a child is with both birth parents present.

It never used to take a village until all the big entitlement programs came along.

But what I'm saying is that it's not the norm. You have this illusion of what the world once was. The world is SO MUCH bigger than this "world" you have envisioned that society is made up of. Change is inevitable.

Also, I find it very disturbing that you are a teacher and you do not feel that it takes a village to raise a child.

Miss_Luscious
09-12-2008, 08:56 AM
Human beings started out with everyone raising the children. It was a collective pool of parents. They would nurse each others kids, feed each others kids, discipline each other's kids, etc. The term "It takes a village to raise a child" is not some new fangled thing made up by those who want government entitlements.

bem401
09-12-2008, 09:12 AM
But what I'm saying is that it's not the norm. You have this illusion of what the world once was. Change is inevitable.

Also, I find it very disturbing that you are a teacher and you do not feel that it takes a village to raise a child.

On the first part, I think we agree. Its not the norm. I remember the way things used to be ( and still are for some people) and I see the change. I just think it is a change for the worse.

I don't know where you're going with the second part. I am an inner-city HS teacher and my views re: the village don't make me any better or worse at teaching the material I teach. I also spend considerable time and money doing things to help my students out outside of school. Without going into details, I've done more than nearly all the other teachers I know but I pick and choose my places. I don't have to do a single one of these things but I do them because I have the means and opportunity to make a difference in their lives. That doesn't mean anyone has a right to expect that from me.

If, in fact, it does take a village to raise a child, its because parents are abdicating their responsibilities.

Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 09:54 AM
On the first part, I think we agree. Its not the norm. I remember the way things used to be ( and still are for some people) and I see the change. I just think it is a change for the worse.

I don't know where you're going with the second part. I am an inner-city HS teacher and my views re: the village don't make me any better or worse at teaching the material I teach. I also spend considerable time and money doing things to help my students out outside of school. Without going into details, I've done more than nearly all the other teachers I know but I pick and choose my places. I don't have to do a single one of these things but I do them because I have the means and opportunity to make a difference in their lives. That doesn't mean anyone has a right to expect that from me.

If, in fact, it does take a village to raise a child, its because parents are abdicating their responsibilities.

Wait a minute !
Are you saying that even with a classic set of parents (" Ozzie & Harriet";" Ward & June Cleaver" or similar type "ideal") that good schools with good teachers and good neighbors looking out for their neighbors' children are not going to be of significant benefit in child rearing ? I would argue that they are and that single parent households even in "good" neighborhoods with "good" schools are more challenged than two parent families.

bem401
09-12-2008, 10:04 AM
Wait a minute !
Are you saying that even with a classic set of parents (" Ozzie & Harriet";" Ward & June Cleaver" or similar type "ideal") that good schools with good teachers and good neighbors looking out for their neighbors' children are not going to be of significant benefit in child rearing ? I would argue that they are and that single parent households even in "good" neighborhoods with "good" schools are more challenged than two parent families.

I don't see how you got that from my post.

I was responding to the "bad teacher" inference being thrown or about to be thrown at me.

The single most important aspect in kids' success is parental involvement, regardless of what type of community you live in. I work in a district where I almost never get to meet the parents and then the ones I meet are the ones I least need to meet.

Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 12:11 PM
I don't see how you got that from my post.

I was responding to the "bad teacher" inference being thrown or about to be thrown at me.

The single most important aspect in kids' success is parental involvement, regardless of what type of community you live in. I work in a district where I almost never get to meet the parents and then the ones I meet are the ones I least need to meet.

I agree with you on parental abdication vs parental involvement.

I disagree with the entire premise of Hillary's bullshit book " IT TAKES A VILLAGE" because decades of governmental involvement /interference in child rearing and education have directly led to disaster

I fault teacher's unions and education professionals for the lousy state of our public schools.

bem401
09-12-2008, 12:59 PM
I fault teacher's unions and education professionals for the lousy state of our public schools.

Its very popular ES to blame the teachers for the problems in education today. We are an easy target and to be honest I don't particularly care much for the people I work with but the real problem lies with the politicians, school boards, and administrators.

I just want to go in every day and teach some math to kids who can handle it. Instead I am pretending to teach Alg II and Pre-cal to students who don't even known their multiplication tables so it looks good for the papers. Every June, I face the same dilemma: passing kids who don't deserve credit or failing kids ( and delaying their graduation by a year) in a class they had no business taking and never wanted in the first place. It's a no-win situation for the students and for me. That problem is caused by politicians, scool boards, and administrators and its not fair to the students. By the time the students find out they're fucked, they're no longer the school district's problem. It sucks but it's all a political show, just like these campaigns we're watching.