July Poll - Your Choice For U.S. President - 2004

[madame_zora]

Maverick,

Your point is well taken on tolerance, I think it's a good feeling to know so many are going that route. I also was not raised to be accepting of others, but being the recipient of discrimination myself was what opened my eyes. I think it must be very difficult to understand for some who have not experienced it.

I like how you use media to glean insights from, I use movies a lot, there are lessons everywhere if we are looking for them. Hell, Snoopy has a lot to say to those who are listening. You can open any book, any newspaper to any page and find reasons to live in harmony with our brothers if that is the message you seek.

Making me horny? You're damned straight! Creative thinking is still the best foreplay!

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by Tender@Jul 9 2004, 01:51 PM

I think if the government, religious organizations, individuals and other groups would bond together in an effort of strengthing the family, preventing divorce, educating people on maintaining familial relationships ect.... over time more children would be raised in the environment intended, and thus would have significantly less problems emotionally, socially, spiritually, ect.


by allowing a large number of homosexuals to raise children, we are thus adding yet another 'village' type family to the structure, and is in essence another step further from preserving the nuclear family structure that was intended. And as we gotten farther away from the nuclear family, our society has seen an increase in its problems.

Tender

And if everyone won't "bond together".....we'll just pass laws and eliminate the Constitution. sigh.

 

[mindseye]

First of all, I think you are misusing the term "nuclear family". The word "nuclear" is used to differentiate from "extended family". In many cultures, families are non-nuclear; that is, children grow up surrounded not just by their two parents but by aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc. In the nuclear family, these non-immediate relatives are present only for incidental occasions. (Incidentally, I chose a source for the definition that favors the nuclear family.) You are using this term to argue against gay parenting, but in fact, you are literally arguing against the involvement of extended relatives in the upbringing of children.

Second of all, you have not established conclusively that the so-called nuclear family is "intended". Indeed -- the animal kingdom exhibits a wide variety of healthy family structures. Or does God make second-class animals? The source you have cited -- the Adam and Eve myth -- is not accepted as factually historic, even among Christian scholars.

Nor have you established a causative relationship (not even a correlation&#33 between the increase in non-traditional families, and the increase in unspecified social "problems". However, I believe any discussion of what could satisfy your burden of proof would be wasted energy.

You are clearly opinionated on this matter, as am I. But I remain convinced that I'm better informed.

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[13788]

maverackstud8: Freud was a lunatic who thought everyone was like him. It's dangerous to use oneself as a case study in Psychology
You nut-why do I like you ?

 

[madame_zora]

Maverick, you like me because you can't help yourself!!

Tender, please don't use any more of my posts to twist around, saying we agree on anything. We do not. Your view on homosexuals raising children is a scourge to me, it has been making me sick for days, I hope you are happy to hear this. I am now going to resist the urge to try to explain anything to you. No need to stand and argue in the face of a fool.

There are a few things I've learned from the Bible that have meaning to me:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"- this was a commandment given us directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"- also, JC

"Judgement is Mine, sayeth the lord"- by, um... the Lord!

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by maverackstud8@Jul 9 2004, 09:29 AM
All i'm saying is Fraud was human.Psychology is an inaccurant science.The guy had a thought-then had another.

My point exactly. He used himself as a case study for all humanity. That's like "I'm not crazy; the other 6,379,434,553 people on this planet are."

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Tender@Jul 9 2004, 11:51 AM
They ARE nearly extinct. And along with that 'extinction' has come even higher divorce rates, child abuse, more crime, teen pregnacy and suicide, substance abuse, ect.
Seems to me that improving childrens environments will improve society over generations.

Anyway, i think that you clarified better in this post, so now i may be understanding you better. It seems that we are thinking the same thing in a different way.

I think if the government, religious organizations, individuals and other groups would bond together in an effort of strengthing the family, preventing divorce, educating people on maintaining familial relationships ect.... over time more children would be raised in the environment intended, and thus would have significantly less problems emotionally, socially, spiritually, ect. That of course wouldnt happen overnight---but then the nuclear family hasnt gone extinct over night.

If i understand correctly you are saying that we of course do not have nuclear families in general anymore, and so we must deal with the structure we DO have, instead of what we THINK we should have. I agree with that.

But, I just think that the way to DEAL with the structures we have now, is to work at changing the trend of the extinction, so that structures do not continue doing further damage.

I understand that it takes a village in essence to raise a child. by that i mean that even beside the nuclear family, there are a vast array of people who care for, influence or are otherwise involved in raising them. That villiage however will never be a full replacement or fill the void, for the nuclear family.

In other words i think it should be our primary goal to change and prevent dysfunctional familes, and preserve the nuclear family. Not accept that they are gone, and thus divorce or other family situations are now the optimum.

by allowing a large number of homosexuals to raise children, we are thus adding yet another 'village' type family to the structure, and is in essence another step further from preserving the nuclear family structure that was intended. And as we gotten farther away from the nuclear family, our society has seen an increase in its problems.

Actually, crime's lower now than it was 30 years ago. However, the prison population still increases because it's cheap labor; in the Florida, they actually charge you for your food if you're in prison, then put you back in if you don't pay! I don't know of actual stats on teen pregnancy. Rates of substance abuse have mainly increased because they've defined substance abuse more broadly.

BTW, stats from activist groups will always be five times what they really are.

 

[madame_zora]

Well, the Bible also makes many references to polygamy, so where does that fit in to the one man- one woman theory?? I think that speaks loudly to the village concept. Children reared in a loving environment, whatever that may be, will always have the greatest advantages. The kids from Columbine were from two-parent nuclear families, but that didn't help them any. I get so sick of people saying fucked up kids came from a "good home". No, they didn't! They came from homes where their needs were ignored, they felt neglected, alone. Their parents were unapproachable. They had issues early on, but no one bothered to notice. I'm not saying either way is fool-proof, but I am saying that if we look for the good in a situation, we will usually find it. Likewise if we look to find fault, we will find that as well. It starts from within.

Here's a thought- gays will not likely be having accidental children! If gay couples have families either through insemination or adoption, they will have to go through great pains to do so, so I can assume their children would be very much wanted. I would surely think that alone would be a tremendous advantage. Since there aren't huge numbers of children raised in gay homes to study, it will take time to glean results, but I'd like to see if they have a higher incidence of drug abuse, crime, or any of the negatives people cite in fear. Violence is most certainly much higher amoung heterosexual males than gay males. Spousal and child abuse is much higher, by percentages. Serial killers are hetero, by a landslide, Dahmer was an exception.

When and if my gay daughter chooses to have a family, her children will come into the world much loved, planned for and anticipated. I can't think of a better environment for a good family. For anyone to say their narrow way is the only way is unconscionable, bigoted, absurd, stupid.....you get the point. People once argued that the world was certainly flat! Texts verified it, all learned people believed it, it was a commonly accepted fact! Despite all "evidence" to the contrary, everyone was wrong. One man with an idea set out to prove his theory, we all know the rest. Even "absolute facts" change, only the daft cease questioning! My father, Ghandi, said "If you are a minority of but one, the truth is still the truth." There is cause for questioning everything. Accepting conventional thinking relieves us of the pressure of educating ourselves and using the gifts we've been given to form opinions. Dammit, I wonder if I'll ever have this out of my system?

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 9 2004, 07:36 PM
Dammit, I wonder if I'll ever have this out of my system?

I, for one, hope not. :wub:

 

[KinkGuy]

According to a memo obtained by the Washington Post in late June, the Bush-Cheney campaign has asked thousands of conservative churches to turn over membership directories to incorporate into get-out-the-vote drives. While evangelical churches represent the single largest voting bloc in the Republican base, they traditionally have been reluctant to coordinate directly with party leaders for fear of violating federal law that prohibits religious institutions, which are tax-exempt, from engaging in partisan political activity.

Seperation of church and state?

 

[madame_zora]

I think I vaguely remember hearing something about sepration of church and state........

 

[jonb]

Hell, some 98% of child molesters are heterosexual, and almost invariably male. There's basic American sexism in that we (TINW) tend to be forgiving of hetero molestation. I'd like to see them talk about those cases.

As for separation of church and state, it's in the constitution, but no one's ever paid attention to it. For example, they actually auctioned off reservations to various denominations in the 1890s. That's why all the large and/or glamorous tribes have such a high proportion of Catholics.

 

[madame_zora]

Jonb, what the Native Americans have had to endure is a crime against humanity, I would like the politicians to have to address THAT! Before we even get to saparation of church and state, we should address the very nature of how our great nation came into being- on the backs of many ethnic groups who were used as slaves, tortured, dominated, and left to fend for themselves in an unfriendly environment. It's still "White Man's World" in many aspects here despite the fact that white men are no longer the majority. However, the Repubican leaders are probably alert enough to be aware of this and will use and means, fair or unfair, to protect their position of advantage. I hope in earnest that we who are fed to the teeth with them will get out and vote, make our majority voice heard once and for all.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 10 2004, 07:20 AM
I think I vaguely remember hearing something about sepration of church and state........

Me too. I think it'd be a great idea.

SG

 

[13788]

maverackstud8: Jonb, what the Native Americans have had to endure is a crime against humanity.
As somebody,with ''Native American ''blood,you tell Madame.

Funny,when I was a kid,I was watching a western-guess it was Stagecoach,with the Duke.Anyway,the part comes when the indian-no not like you MADAME,but attack my fort anyday-started attack the coach,my father comes in and tells-''You go routing for the cowboys and white people there,because you got more in common with the bad guys,in the film.''
I did not know,what the hell,he was talking about then.until years later,after he passed on,I had much in common with both the Lone Ranger and Tonto,on an ancestral level. :blink: Shit,now I know why my Momma and me likes Elvis,Jim Garner,Kurt Russell.Don Johnson,and why I don't bust to much on Kevin Cosner,despite Waterwolrd.
Well,while we are railing out,let forget,how the Irish,were treated like third class citizens in America.If you watch Gangs of New York or the History channel,you can see how the stereo types of Irish being drunken monkeys got started.
[Of course,those stories are all true-we are all drunken monkeys.]
Well,I'm not-no,you know I'm joking.Being part Irish,I can get away with saying that.Irish people have been known to drink though ,but I guess,if your poor,you do what you can to get by.I don't drink,being part Irish,Scottish and American Indian-Native American-god,I hate pc.-I don't test fate.That and alcoholism is prevalent in my family.
The Irish built our cities,became our first police forces,run bars and did a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting,besides eat potatoes and spawn Little People tales,get drunk.swing thru trees,and not often sponsor Lucky Charms or Irish Spring.-Well,far as we know.

My thinking,is Custer,was an idiot.The USA could have made more treaties and incorporated the Natives into American culture more smoothly.I don't the plains and tribe way of life could have lasted for long,but nobody needed yahoo assholes making it worst.Too bad,my pop,can't be here,to see me cheer on the ''bad guys.''.With the exception,of Errol Flynn,I always like to hear or see ''General.''Custer get his stupid ass kicked.along the 7th Calvary.Sorry,guys,but wasn't there something more important you guys could been doing,than picking ''the Indians ?."'I am sure,you could have found something.
ps,despite Hollyweird stereo type,once joined a ''Native American.''chat room for a time,most were friendly.No how.no me wantum smokum peace pipe,nobody was on any-I hate the great white father warpath.Sure,the stuff annoyed them,but like Tonto,kemosabi,took it all in stride.I think,that’s a good way to look at it.Get pissed when it counts,but also don't dredge it into the culture 24 7.I'm from both sides,so my ancestry was either native or settler or immigrant.

Boy,you with our local size queen Indian princess,to champion our course,who friggin needs Aim,Tonto,Nativo Joe,or anything else.Maybe she needs a feather and a teepee.I bet you'd look hot in buckskin.
Now,gottum to hunt buffalo.kemosabi.
.And now this
Sincerely yours-Opward Onward Maveric.

 

[13788]

maverackstud8: It's still "White Man's World" in many aspects here despite the fact that white men are no longer the majority
Are you sure your not Wonder Woman ?

I'm checking you a tiara and golden lasso.if I ever meet ya.Least some golden slippers.an old rope,and funny hat.

 

[jonb]

Well, we actually never wanted to be part of this country; that much Reagan got right. The best they could've done for us was just leave us alone.

What's funny about Custer is, they said that our killing Custer was proof that we needed to be exterminated. Remember that whenever you hear news about the U.S. attacking another country.

Oh, interesting thing: AIM originally was called Concerned Indian Americans. But in the anti-government environment of the 60s, they changed it to American Indian Movement. From my short time on AOL, I can't tell which acronym has more stigma. LOL

Oh, I did hear a bit of Godwin from this drama queen on usenet, Peacenik, comparing the Cherokee not allowing this lesbian couple to get married to a forced march. Of course, had the Cherokee allowed it, Bu$h would've quickly retracted recognition of tribal marriages and it'd be Massachusetts all over.

 

[13788]

maverackstud8: You know what bugs me,is the idiot on the Man Show,that got mad at me proud my mixed heritage.because there is alot of half American Indian/non American Indians around the usa.
Gee,big dick,mixed ancestry-hey,asshole your show stinks

Hey,half the people America,if not all got some mixed bllod in them