Further infiltration of the bedroom...

Sabln7

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Posts
314
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
161
Location
Texas
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Originally posted by madame_zora+Oct 6 2005, 05:40 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Oct 6 2005, 05:40 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KinkGuy@Oct 5 2005, 11:55 PM
So just where does this discrimination at the least or most appropriately, racial cleansing (and that&#39;s what it is) end?  For now you must only be a married man and woman.  What&#39;s next?  You must have a certain income, live in certain areas, be only educated to a certain level, be willing to murder any child not of the approved gender, be only white and able to prove your bloodline????

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR???????????????????????
TO ANYONE????????????????????????????????????????????????
[post=349189]Quoted post[/post]​


Oh, it&#39;s NOT just that they must be a married man and woman, they must ALSO be affiliated with a Christian church&#33; I shit you not, that&#39;s part of the requirement&#33; AND, if any of the lezbos go ahead and procreate AGAINST THE LAW, they risk being fined and/or imprisoned&#33; This is america, folks, right here and now. This makes your further concerns very real indeed.

While I find it unlikely that it will pass (although nothing surprises me thesedays), the very fact that it is being discussed creeps me the fuck out. We simply CAN&#39;T be tolerant of this horseshit anymore. If we don&#39;t scream now, and loudly, our voices may be forever muffled.
[post=349269]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]


5,000 amens to you Madam Zora&#33; Give me Democrats and blow jobs in the white house any time over this repressive regime.

Of course, I remember the religious evangelists wars of the 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s and Newt Gingrich. In both cases, it turns out that those who were hollering the most about immorality were also the most involved in immoral acts. I think that might be the current regime&#39;s thoughts----control everyone but them.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by madame_zora@Oct 6 2005, 01:40 AM
While I find it unlikely that it will pass (although nothing surprises me thesedays), the very fact that it is being discussed creeps me the fuck out. We simply CAN&#39;T be tolerant of this horseshit anymore. If we don&#39;t scream now, and loudly, our voices may be forever muffled.
[post=349269]Quoted post[/post]​
Well, well... it appears that the author of the bill withdrew it, claiming she was not aware of the complexity of the issue.

Is she lying, or is she really that STUPID??? What a moron, unaware that legislating something that personal, private, and fundamental, would be complex? I&#39;m surprised she doesn&#39;t drown in the shower, as she looks up, wondering how it could be raining indoors....

edit: It still amazes me that many of these posts has missed the point that was perhaps most puzzling to me - that according to the proposed law, an unmarried woman would be allowed to become pregnant if she had some (any?) big throbbing cock shoot a load inside her, but the turkey-baster method would be strictly forbidden.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by TexAssgirl
Doubtful it will pass (*fingers crossed*), but here&#39;s a quote from the author of the bill:

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should
allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child
raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we
do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

The Hallmark of the Underclass

By Charles Murray
29 September 2005
The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright &copy; 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

[...]

Criminality is the most extreme manifestation of the unsocialized young male. Another is the proportion of young males who choose not to work. Among black males ages 20-24, for example, the percentage who were not working or looking for work when the first numbers were gathered in 1954 was 9%. That figure grew during the 1960s and 1970s, stabilizing at around 20% during the 1980s. The proportion rose again, reaching 30% in 1999, a year when employers were frantically seeking workers for every level of job. The dropout rate among young white males is lower, but has been increasing faster than among blacks.

These increases are not explained by changes in college enrollment or any other benign cause. Large numbers of healthy young men, at ages when labor force participation used to be close to universal, have dropped out. Remember that these numbers ignore young males already in prison. Include them in the calculation, and the evidence of the deteriorating socialization of young males, concentrated in low income groups, is overwhelming.

Why has the proportion of unsocialized young males risen so relentlessly? In large part, I would argue, because the proportion of young males who have grown up without fathers has also risen relentlessly. The indicator here is the illegitimacy ratio -- the percentage of live births that occur to single women. It was a minuscule 4% in the early 1950s, and it has risen substantially in every subsequent decade. The ratio reached the 25% milestone in 1988 and the 33% milestone in 1999. As of 2003, the figure was 35% -- of all births, including whites. The black illegitimacy ratio in 2003 was 68%. By way of comparison: The illegitimacy ratio that caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to proclaim the breakdown of the black family in the early 1960s was 24%.

But illegitimacy is now common throughout the population, right? No, it is heavily concentrated in low-income groups. Perhaps illegitimacy isn&#39;t as bad as we used to think it was? No, during the last decade the evidence about the problems caused by illegitimacy has grown stronger. What about all the good news about falling teenage births? About plunging welfare rolls? Both trends are welcome, but neither has anything to do with the proportion of children being born and raised without fathers, and that proportion is the indicator that predicts the size of the underclass in the next generation.


Why do people object to, say, the Healthy Marriage Initiative?



So here&#39;s my question: Do they plan on keeping parents from divorcing as well?
Absolutely not.

The ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative is Not About:

* Coercing anyone to marry or remain in unhealthy relationships.
* Withdrawing supports from single parents, or diminishing, either directly or indirectly, the important work of single parents.
* Stigmatizing those who choose divorce.
* Limiting access to divorce.
* Promoting the initiative as a panacea for achieving positive outcomes for child and family well-being.
* Running a federal dating service.
* An immediate solution to lifting all families out of poverty.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by Shelby
I assume everyone is just as vehemently opposed to the screening process prospective adopting parents must endure.
That would involve accepting personal responsibility. Why do that when it&#39;s so easy to blame someone else?
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
155
Points
268
Age
69
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This and all the other "moral" causes, laws, justification and removal of civil rights and freedoms are just the smokescreen created to divert the populaces attention while a police state is being built.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
64
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Oct 6 2005, 07:20 AM
Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist practicing Eugenics, by the way. Holla.
[post=349379]Quoted post[/post]​
Which is why Sanger associated with WEB Du Bois, Mary McLeod Bethune, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr. And why Martin Luther King compared himself to her. It indicates more about the racism of the pro-life movement that they would think anyone with half a brain would fall for your story.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Everyone has danced around the real reason I believe the bill was introduced. It was about keeping lesbian couples from having babies. It is assumed that straight couples wouldn&#39;t need the aritifical insemination process.

It was all about limiting the rights of homosexuals. Another way to slam minorities in our society.

Yes, Jana, it is "horseshit" what they were and are trying to do.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Oct 7 2005, 04:45 AM
Wait a minute ... what about unmarried women who conceive as a result of rape? Where do they fit into the equation? Did I skip over reading something?
[post=349574]Quoted post[/post]​


Well SHE could be forced to marry her assailant, like women were in the past. Ah, the good old days, let&#39;s all just travel back in time to when women were broodmares and had no rights to their own reproductive organs.

Meanwhile, regardless of what any fucking study produces, crackheads are the most fertile bitches on earth and no one is stopping them. Yeah, the REAL threat to society is those lezbos who insist that a loving home is a good environment for rearing a child. People who actually WANT their babies are limited while people who are too stoned to even try to prevent pregnancy have the complete freedom to do so.

Fucking right-wing nosy ass no life-having pieces of fecal matter, if they&#39;d stop being such hideous creatures themselves, they could stop trying to make the rest of the country pay for their guilt. Anyone who had any part of that bill or agreed to it to ANY extent can fuck of and die, quickly.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Oct 7 2005, 12:45 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Oct 7 2005, 12:45 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Wait a minute ... what about unmarried women who conceive as a result of rape? Where do they fit into the equation? Did I skip over reading something?
[post=349574]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b]

Yes, DMW, you did miss a significant part. May I ask, did you actually read the text of the proposed bill? Unless I read it incorrectly, the main thrust (&#33;) of the bill was to limit fertility treatment - in vitro fertilization, and in vivo artificial insemination. So, basically, for married couples with fertility problems, they have to get permission from the court clerk to GO to a fertility clinic. Unmarried or single persons are just forbidden to use artificial methods. So if a rapist blows a big fertile load in his victim, and she conceives, that&#39;s just fine. As far as I could tell from reading it, the proposed bill was not concerned with a woman BECOMING pregnant, as long as she gets that way by fucking.

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora
@Oct 7 2005, 03:20 AM
Well SHE could be forced to marry her assailant, like women were in the past. Ah, the good old days, let&#39;s all just travel back in time to when women were broodmares and had no rights to their own reproductive organs.

Meanwhile, regardless of what any fucking study produces, crackheads are the most fertile bitches on earth and no one is stopping them. Yeah, the REAL threat to society is those lezbos who insist that a loving home is a good environment for rearing a child. People who actually WANT their babies are limited while people who are too stoned to even try to prevent pregnancy have the complete freedom to do so.

Fucking right-wing nosy ass no life-having pieces of fecal matter, if they&#39;d stop being such hideous creatures themselves, they could stop trying to make the rest of the country pay for their guilt. Anyone who had any part of that bill or agreed to it to ANY extent can fuck of and die, quickly.
[post=349596]Quoted post[/post]​
[/quote]
I don&#39;t think so, Mme... the bill had no ex post facto provisions that I noticed, just punishments for the doctor and patient who used a turkey-baster or petri dish without government permission. I do agree, though, that the government needs to stay OUT OF OUR CROTCHES.
 

naughty

Sexy Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Posts
11,232
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
258
Location
Workin' up a good pot of mad!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Ok,

I consider myself a Christian and do go to church every Sunday, but someone here is smoking the herb of stupidity&#33; Yes, the rate of teen mothers is alarming, but this is really going overboard. I think of all of the great people who grew up in less than "ideal" circumstances to contribute great things to this country.
What about the love factor? I think of a verse from I Corinthians 13 "...though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not love I am as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal...." On the flip side we are increasingly hearing of families which look wonderful on the outside but a pools of dysfunction despite the cover of respectability. The final thing that hurts is thinking of all of the couples who are desperate to have children who would be thwarted by this wrong headed proposal.

Naughty
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
I&#39;ll try this once again and draw my own conclusions from the responses or lack thereof -

Should prospective adoptive parents be screened? Why or why not? And if you answer yes, why shouldn&#39;t the same standards apply to those seeking artificial assistance to conceive?
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Originally posted by madame_zora+Oct 7 2005, 02:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Oct 7 2005, 02:20 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@Oct 7 2005, 04:45 AM
[post=349574]Quoted post[/post]​


Well SHE could be forced to marry her assailant, like women were in the past. Ah, the good old days, let&#39;s all just travel back in time to when women were broodmares and had no rights to their own reproductive organs.

Fucking right-wing nosy ass no life-having pieces of fecal matter, if they&#39;d stop being such hideous creatures themselves, they could stop trying to make the rest of the country pay for their guilt. Anyone who had any part of that bill or agreed to it to ANY extent can fuck of and die, quickly.
[post=349596]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]
Not only do the proponets of this bill want to prevent lesbians from having a baby by artificial insemination, they want to return to fundamental Hebrew law.

The ancient Hebrews were a theocracy. So the civil laws were mixed in with the religious laws. Both are found in what the Christians call the Old Testament. Most of these are found in what the Jews call the Torah, which is the first five books of the Old Testament.

I have heard people say that "we" need to return to the ancient laws and punishments. Nevermind that Jesus and the early Christians did away with most of those archaic laws. And that was 2000 years ago. Jesus never said one negative word about women. He was always lifting them up and giving them hope. I am sure if Jesus were alive today, he would be appalled at such a law. Jesus would I&#39;m sure condemn groups promoting such trash as this law.

The scary part is that this group has an "agenda." All of America needs to be alarmed. Upholding the Constitution and values of the Founders of the United States in not of importance to these people.

For those who think Mademe Zora is overacting, think again. Whether this group succeeds in their goals or not, I don&#39;t know. The fact that they have goals that are diametrically opposed to the goals and values of our Founders and our U.S. Consitution is indeed factual. The proof is out there. This bill is just one example.

We can fight it or we can allow it to come to pass. God help us all if we let them win.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by Shelby@Oct 7 2005, 09:59 AM
I&#39;ll try this once again and draw my own conclusions from the responses or lack thereof -

Should prospective adoptive parents be screened? Why or why not? And if you answer yes, why shouldn&#39;t the same standards apply to those seeking artificial assistance to conceive?
[post=349650]Quoted post[/post]​
Good point, and tough question, Shelby. But although similar, the two are just not the same. I suppose a less emotionally charged analogy would be birthright citizenship and naturalized citizenship - a different process resulting in the same end result.

I can&#39;t really give you an answer on that one. I do believe that prospective adoptive parents should go through some screening process, but through social services professionals, not court clerks. As I understand it, though, whether law or not, prospective candidates for artificial insemination ALSO go through a screening process, but with their doctor, not the courts. I will not claim expertise in this area, though, as I have never attempted to become a parent, whether through intercourse, in vitro fertilization, in vivo artificial insemination, or adoption. I don&#39;t intimately know the legal issues involved in those areas. I just don&#39;t think the government should base the issuance of a "fertilization license" upon church affiliation or adherance to "traditional marriage."

edit: I, too, will try this once again... of those who have posted replies on this thread, how many have actually read the text of the proposed bill?