'HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE WANT MARRIAGE LEAVE FROM JOB'
Patrick Coghlan
Hartshorn) wrote:
>One way to cease this perpetual argument about relationships is for
>governments not to recognize any. As they once said, they have no
>right in the bedroom, and it would be simpler all round if they
>treated everyone as a single person. Each persons taxes should be
>treated seperately, no allowances for 'partners', any allowances being
>made to single people. There, problem gone!
That would certainly satisfy those that subscribe to the "everything
is ok" mentality. Good-bye to values. Good-bye to any kind of rules
society wants to have.
Fortunately, most people understand that this mentality is foolish.
>
>On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:46:32 GMT, sierra...@yahoo.com (Marc "Katt"
>Lombart) wrote:
>
>>pcog...@magma.ca (Patrick Coghlan) wrote in
>><382F7E49...@magma.ca>:
>>
>>>Show me a marriage 'licence' for such a marriage in Canada, and I'll
>>>believe you.
>>>
>>
>> You are a moron. Read the news more and you will see that I am right.
>>
>>
>>
>>>In Quebec...what???
>>>
>>
>> They legally recognized same sex marriages fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If it was recognized, then such couples would immediately be subject to
>>>tax laws affecting family income - which they are not.
>>>
>> But they are.
>>
>>Marc
>>
>>
>
Marc Katt Lombart
<383026e9.435570893@kannews>:
>That would certainly satisfy those that subscribe to the "everything
>is ok" mentality. Good-bye to values. Good-bye to any kind of rules
>society wants to have
Again with the moronic bullshit.
Marc
Paul Berry
: >One way to cease this perpetual argument about relationships is for
: >governments not to recognize any. As they once said, they have no
: >right in the bedroom, and it would be simpler all round if they
: >treated everyone as a single person. Each persons taxes should be
: >treated seperately, no allowances for 'partners', any allowances being
: >made to single people. There, problem gone!
: That would certainly satisfy those that subscribe to the "everything
: is ok" mentality. Good-bye to values. Good-bye to any kind of rules
: society wants to have.
Regardless of the efforts made by governments to de-institutionalise
systemic prejudice, groups and individuals have proven innumerable times
that they are quite capable of maintaining their bigotries, pettynesses
and self-righteous ignorance. No one can legislate away your values, Mr.
Coghlan.
--
Patrick Coghlan
Lombart) wrote:
>pcog...@magma.ca (Patrick Coghlan) wrote in
><3830C7C4...@magma.ca>:
>
>>No, they are not. As I've told you several times already, you cannot
>>get married in Quebec. They have extended many spousal benefits such as
>>pensions and health
>>
>
> Lies. Same sex couples are accorded the same status as Common law
>marriages. And yes, you need a divorce to split up afterwards.
In that case, have a look at
http://www.to-get-her.org/world/message/276.html for more "lies".
Oh, and pay particular attention to the following quote contained in
that National Post article:
"While British Columbia and Ontario have extended some spousal
benefits to same-sex couples, no province in the
country has yet recognized gay and lesbian partnerships on a par with marriage."
If you have more accurate information, feel free to post it.
Otherwise, shut up.
Ken
multiethnic, multireligious, multiagnostic, multiatheistic DEMOCRACY,
individual rights must assume prime attention because legislating in areas
regarding personal relationships cannot possibly be done fairly re GROUPS.
THis is a natural evolution and is of necessity a secular process. It
involves immigrant fathers from Muslim or Hindu or Sikh or other regions
learning that their daughters have EXACTLY the same rights as the father
when she reaches the age of majority. That forced arranged marriages
persist in Canada among certain groups, with hideous consequences for the
woman if she refuses to participate, suggests that this is one important
area in which the government SHOULD become more activist--to protect the
rights of the woman, but not the basics of marriage. No one seem to want
to discuss this topic, least of all the governments. But it IS an important
issue and it will eventually have to be dealt with openly. It is important
to keep in mind that arranged marriages usually involve the encouragement,
nurturing, and perpetuation of SEXISM and RACISM. How many arranged
marriages are interracial? Exactly. As for gays and lesbians, they should
have, and are acquiring, exactly the same marriage-related rights as
everyone else, however their relationships are defined.
Paul Berry wrote in message ...
Patrick Coghlan
wrote:
>marriages are interracial? Exactly. As for gays and lesbians, they should
>have, and are acquiring, exactly the same marriage-related rights as
>everyone else, however their relationships are defined.
Bottom line: a marriage will remain in the exclusive domain of
heterosexuals. 98% of society will not adapt itself to the notion
that a marriage can be anything else.
With marriage comes the expectation of starting a family. As hard as
they may try, homosexual partners will never achieve equality in this
regard. Count on it.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:43:18 -0800, "Ken" <Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >marriages are interracial? Exactly. As for gays and lesbians, they should
> >have, and are acquiring, exactly the same marriage-related rights as
> >everyone else, however their relationships are defined.
>
> Bottom line: a marriage will remain in the exclusive domain of
> heterosexuals. 98% of society will not adapt itself to the notion
> that a marriage can be anything else.
> With marriage comes the expectation of starting a family. As hard as
> they may try, homosexual partners will never achieve equality in this
> regard. Count on it.
We've already asked you how, then, we should deal with heterosexual couples
who have no intention of having children whatsoever, or couples who are
infertile, or cannot bear children for medical reasons? What of THOSE people who
have no "expectations of starting a family"? How are they different from a
homosexual couple? But no need to answer the question we've posed for a second
time: we know it would only expose you as a hypocrite.
Someone else (I forget which, you homophobic bigots all look the same to me)
mentioned how gay couples were undermining family values. In another breath,
that person also accused gays of desiring to build families. So that's the crux
of your arguments? Gays threaten family values by attempting to build strong
families? And your denial of their right to build families does what, exactly,
to protect "family values"?
Seems to me like you're the worst enemy of "family values". No wonder you
sloping-forehead neanderthals always end up the butt of the joke. But that's all
I've come to expect from bigots: glaring contradictions in their stance,
whatever it may be. That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
logical. And as such, you possess no credibility.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
news:3832FD54...@sympatico.ca...
> That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
> logical.
This, of course, contrasted with your very logical and unemotional
statements in the same message:
> [...] you homophobic bigots all look the same to me [...]
> [...] you sloping-forehead neanderthals [...]
As we all know, ad hominem attacks are the paragon of logical statements.
They rank only slightly under "proof by assertion" in their rigid,
unassailable logic.
> And as such, you possess no credibility.
Before you start tossing around the credibility card, you should make sure
you actually have it in your own grasp.
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3832FD54...@sympatico.ca...
>
> > That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
> > logical.
>
> This, of course, contrasted with your very logical and unemotional
> statements in the same message:
>
> > [...] you homophobic bigots all look the same to me [...]
> > [...] you sloping-forehead neanderthals [...]
>
> As we all know, ad hominem attacks are the paragon of logical statements.
> They rank only slightly under "proof by assertion" in their rigid,
> unassailable logic.
Yet, I do not condone the violation of human rights based on sexual
orientation... or sloping forehead.
Try addressing the actual issues, rather than cutting and pasting
selectively, won't you? You and your ilk are STILL avoiding the contradictions
that I pointed out so efficiently.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
>>> That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
>>> logical.
>> This, of course, contrasted with your very logical and unemotional
>> statements in the same message:
>>> [...] you homophobic bigots all look the same to me [...]
>>> [...] you sloping-forehead neanderthals [...]
>> As we all know, ad hominem attacks are the paragon of logical statements.
>> They rank only slightly under "proof by assertion" in their rigid,
>> unassailable logic.
> Yet, I do not condone the violation of human rights based on sexual
> orientation...
Nor do I. What's your point?
> or sloping forehead.
Another devastatingly logical point delivered with calm assurance.
> Try addressing the actual issues,
Actual issues like what angle your detractors' foreheads are at? Might I
suggest you start applying your own advice to yourself at some point?
The actual issue *I'm* addressing is hypocrisy. (Since you apparently can't
figure this out on your own, I've changed the subject header to reflect the
focus.) In particular I'm addressing the hypocrisy which says something
like "your arguments are all emotional; mine are all logical" in a post
which contains so much illogic that it boggles the mind. It seems that in
common parlance "logical" now simply means "agrees with my own particular
brand of bigotry" and "illogical" merely means "disagrees with my own
particular brand of bigotry". And the fact that you make the next statement
here further proves the point:
> You and your ilk are STILL avoiding the contradictions
> that I pointed out so efficiently.
And what would that ilk be, precisely? Are you assuming that because I'm
criticising your hypocrisy that I'm supporting those who oppose gay
marriages?
Think again, fuckwit. If you hadn't tried to take the "I'm so logical"
route, you'd not have heard a peep out of me. I agree with you that
Patrick's opinions are wrong-headed and foolish. I just don't agree with
you when you claim to be making logical arguments. You're not. You're
being just as emotional, wrong-headed and foolish as Patrick. You just
happen to be right on the issue of gay marriages.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> The actual issue *I'm* addressing is hypocrisy. (Since you apparently can't
> figure this out on your own, I've changed the subject header to reflect the
> focus.) In particular I'm addressing the hypocrisy which says something
> like "your arguments are all emotional; mine are all logical" in a post
> which contains so much illogic that it boggles the mind. It seems that in
> common parlance "logical" now simply means "agrees with my own particular
> brand of bigotry" and "illogical" merely means "disagrees with my own
> particular brand of bigotry".
Oh, how I hate having to explain things. Especially obvious things.
The argument isn't whether Patrick is a bigot, you poor confused befuddled
child. It's that Patrick believes gays shouldn't marry because they cannot bear
children, while ignoring heterosexual couples who cannot either.
See, THAT'S the argument. THAT'S the faulty logic.
"Sloping-forehead neanderthal" is the conclusion. It's gratuitous. It's the
cherry on the sundae. I can call him "mister", or I can call him "fuckwit" (now
where did I see that word?), but it does not in the least change the argument
above, that of Patrick's contradictions, which he has yet to answer.
Now, had I reproached him the use of insults AND called him a neanderthal,
then your charge of hypocrisy might have some relevance. Which brings us to the
next point:
> Think again, fuckwit.
Nice logical argument. Oh wait, might this be a clever ploy? By resorting to
insults, while at the same time condemning me for doing the same, you are in
fact demonstrating the futility of such practices?
Or could it be that you've simply demonstrated the hypocrisy that you tried
to accuse me of?
> If you hadn't tried to take the "I'm so logical"
> route, you'd not have heard a peep out of me.
Oh, the mere thought fills me with bliss...
> I agree with you that
> Patrick's opinions are wrong-headed and foolish. I just don't agree with
> you when you claim to be making logical arguments. You're not.
"Sloping-forehead neanderthal" isn't an argument, it's an insult on the
person. I adressed Patrick's "arguments" elsewhere in his post. Take time to
read carefully, and differentiate between the two, lest we suffer once more your
misguided intervention.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
> Oh, how I hate having to explain things. Especially obvious things.
And incorrect things. You're good at that as well.
> The argument isn't whether Patrick is a bigot,
That is correct. Patrick is clearly a bigot on this issue.
> you poor confused befuddled child.
Ad-hominem doesn't get more logical with repetition. It just gets more
tiresome coming from someone who says, and I quote:
> That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
> logical. And as such, you possess no credibility.
Since your own responses to Patrick *AND* to me contain a wealth of
ad-hominem attacks -- illogical, emotional arguments, in other words -- by
YOUR OWN STATEMENT you possess no credibility.
> See, THAT'S the argument. THAT'S the faulty logic.
Yes. That's illogical. And calling someone a "sloping-forehead
Neanderthal" (it's a proper noun, dimwit) is equally illogical. Your
foundation is shifting sand.
> "Sloping-forehead neanderthal" is the conclusion. It's gratuitous. It's
> the cherry on the sundae. I can call him "mister", or I can call him
> "fuckwit" (now where did I see that word?), but it does not in the least
> change the argument above, that of Patrick's contradictions, which he has
> yet to answer.
And I'll let him answer it, if he so chooses, at his convenience. But I'll
also challenge you on your "oh I'm so logical" high horse when you yourself
are equally emotional in your arguments.
>> Think again, fuckwit.
> Nice logical argument.
> Or could it be that you've simply demonstrated the hypocrisy that you
> tried to accuse me of?
Point out where I said "I'm logical, you're emotional, therefore you have no
credibility" in this. (Hint: this is not possible.) I make no pretense of
being a calm, cold 100% rational person. As such, it is not hypocrisy for
me to use emotional arguments or just plain abuse. You do. As such it *IS*
hypocrisy for you to hurl abuse.
*YOU* played the "I'm so logical" game, not me. *YOU* have to suck it up
now.
> "Sloping-forehead neanderthal" isn't an argument,
At least you recognize that much.
> it's an insult on the person.
Yes. Technically termed "ad hominem". And thus makes you, by your own
position statement, free from all credibility.
grumblefish
befuddled
> child. It's that Patrick believes gays shouldn't marry because they cannot
bear
> children, while ignoring heterosexual couples who cannot either.
>
I *have* heard great arguments as to why homosexual marriages should not be
entrenched into law, actually (and consider them to be good arguments why
the state should stay the hell out of relationships for the most part), but
the particular argument referred to here is laughable, IMHO.
Marc Katt Lombart
<3833246A...@sympatico.ca>:
> The argument isn't whether Patrick is a bigot, you poor confused
> befuddled
>child. It's that Patrick believes gays shouldn't marry because they
>cannot bear children, while ignoring heterosexual couples who cannot
>either.
>
Not to mention that it is bullshit. Homosexual couples can indeed bear
and rear children, they just have to go about it a different way. Two lady
friends of mine are in a monogamous homosexual relationship, yet one
purposedly got pregnant in order to have a child. The two of them, with their
friends' and family's support are raising the child very well.
Others sometimes exchange services. A male homosexual couple will sire
children with a female homosexual couple, one couple gets one child, the
other couple the other.
There goes his argument about raising children.
Marc
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3833246A...@sympatico.ca...
> > The argument isn't whether Patrick is a bigot,
>
> That is correct. Patrick is clearly a bigot on this issue.
>
> > you poor confused befuddled child.
>
> Ad-hominem doesn't get more logical with repetition. It just gets more
> tiresome coming from someone who says, and I quote:
>
> > That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
> > logical. And as such, you possess no credibility.
>
> Since your own responses to Patrick *AND* to me contain a wealth of
> ad-hominem attacks -- illogical, emotional arguments, in other words -- by
> YOUR OWN STATEMENT you possess no credibility.
But wait, you just AGREED with me that Patrick is a bigot! That would then
make me RIGHT in calling him a bigot, unless you're hereby admitting that you
too are wrong - perish the thought!
So what is it you're nitpicking on AGAIN this time, if not my assessment of
Patrick? My tone of voice? The way I laced my shoes? It certainly isn't the CRUX
of the argument regarding Patrick's rationalization of his homophobia - you
chose to ignore that from the beginning. No, that ESSENCE of the argument
certainly is irrelevant, better agonize over the dotting of i's and the crossing
of t's.
You see, my calling Patrick a Neanderthal qualifies as a subjective
statement. I can say the same about my calling you an idiot. But how that
dismisses in the least my claim that Patrick's arguments about the treatment of
gays are contradictory is a secret known only to you. But that's exactly what
you're implying here. In essence, according to your brilliant "logic", claiming
that "The sun rises east, you idiot" is false, because of the epithet.
Like I said: semantics. Bullshit verbiage designed to conceal the real
issue: is or isn't Patrick contradicting himself? "Well", you reply, "that all
depends on whether you call him a Neanderthal".
You must be a real hit at parties.
> And I'll let him answer it, if he so chooses, at his convenience. But I'll
> also challenge you on your "oh I'm so logical" high horse when you yourself
> are equally emotional in your arguments.
Of COURSE my argument was logical! If Patrick thinks gays shouldn't marry
because they can't bear children, then he's also dismissing heterosexual couples
who cannot either!
THAT'S the argument (as you need reminding so often). Please show me the
flaw in logic in the argument above, instead of nitpicking eternally on whether
the argument itself is valid because I called him a Neanderthal. Stick to the
fucking point, will you?
> >> Think again, fuckwit.
>
> > Nice logical argument.
>
> > Or could it be that you've simply demonstrated the hypocrisy that you
> > tried to accuse me of?
>
> Point out where I said "I'm logical, you're emotional, therefore you have no
> credibility" in this. (Hint: this is not possible.)
I'm pointing out where you accused me of indulging in attacks, then followed
suit like a happy little camper. I'm pointing out where you accused me of being
a hypocrite.
What, am I going to have to explaint THIS to you as well??!
> I make no pretense of
> being a calm, cold 100% rational person.
I made no pretense of considering you rational either.
> As such, it is not hypocrisy for
> me to use emotional arguments or just plain abuse. You do. As such it *IS*
> hypocrisy for you to hurl abuse.
Oh, what a fucking royal load of BULLSHIT! "I can call you a hypocritical
asshole for name-calling because I have my fingers crossed when *I* do it!",
says Michael.
> *YOU* played the "I'm so logical" game, not me. *YOU* have to suck it up
> now.
You yet have to show me how my argument against Patrick is anything BUT
logical. You can't. You try to dance a jig around the issue, but you're only
fooling yourself, stupid little man.
> > "Sloping-forehead neanderthal" isn't an argument,
>
> At least you recognize that much.
I only wish that you would. I mean, that's what you keep calling "my
argument", isn't it? Everyone's discussing Patrick's self-contradictory
arguments, except you.
jaybee
Ken & Laura Chaddock
>
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote:
>
> > Patrick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> > > With marriage comes the expectation of starting a family. As hard as
> > > they may try, homosexual partners will never achieve equality in this
> > > regard. Count on it.
> >
> > We've already asked you how, then, we should deal with heterosexual couples
> > who have no intention of having children whatsoever, or couples who are
> > infertile, or cannot bear children for medical reasons? What of THOSE people who
>
>
> You treat it the way Revenue Canada deals with a business loss. As long as the
> business you have started up has a "reasonable expectation" of profit, you can
> continue to deduct these losses year after year. In the end, if it turns out that
> the business never makes a profit, then the expectation was wrong, but at least the
> expectation was there to begin with, the the allowable deduction. The deducted
> losses are not recaptured requiring you to pay back your tax deductions.
Your answer is a crock Patrick. You may be able to draw a reasonable
analogy between a heterosexual family who are *trying* (but failing) to
have children and a business which is trying but failing to make a
profit.
You cannot with any credibility draw the same analogy between a hetero
family which is either unable or unwilling to have children and the same
business, it just doesn't wash and is simply a bit of obfuscation
intended
to cover up basic bigotry.
> Every heterosexual couple of child bearing age has a "reasonable expectation" of
> producing offspring. Much better than than a business has of producing a profit,
> acutally. So, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
And when there *is* no doubt ? Would you be pleased if revenue Canada
decided that if you wished to receive marriage tax benefits you and your
(hetero) partner would have to submit to a fertility test ? Remember, if
Revenue Canada can prove that you have been operating your business as a
simply "tax dodge" with no intention to produce a profit they penalize
you
(quite severely I might add...)
> In the case of homosexual couples, there is no such reasonable expectation that they
> will become parents.
What a crock...many *ARE* parents...
> Now, I suppose you could argue that people with medical problems etc. might choose
> to adopt, but these people are treated on par as any other couple as potential
> adoptive parents. Homosexuals are not.
Since when ? Homosexuals can adopt, why should they not be extended
the
same benefits...looks, smells and tastes like homophobia to me.
> No hypocrisy here.
Oh great hypocrisy Patrick, great hypocrisy.
> We allow full marriage benefits to accrue to heterosexuals because they can
> either produce children or can adopt children. This is one reason why
> homosexual marriages will never be granted equal status with heterosexual
> marriages, because doing the former would be one step in the door to full adoptive
> rights and that, in my opinion, simply ain't gonna happen.
You know Patrick, these arguments are very similar to those which
used
to be used to try to keep blacks and "coloureds" down. When are you
going
to accept that you are simply spouting an irrational, homophobic bigotry
which has no objective support and is simply an attempt to suppress a
lifestyle which you find personally distasteful ?
> It makes a mockery of what 98% of society calls a marriage.
And just who says that 98% of society is right ? 98% of society
used to think slavery was "OK"...did that make it "right" ? A union
of 1 man and up to 5 women is called a "marriage" sanctioned by God
by the majority of people on earth...we don't, who is right, the
majority who do or our minority who don't ?
> I operate by simple rules. I leave emotion out as a variable.
There is very *little* truth in this stance Patrick but it *is*
full of much pure homophobia and bigotry.
...Ken
Patrick Coghlan
> You see, my calling Patrick a Neanderthal qualifies as a subjective
> statement. I can say the same about my calling you an idiot. But how that
> dismisses in the least my claim that Patrick's arguments about the treatment of
> gays are contradictory is a secret known only to you. But that's exactly what
I see no contradiction in my attitude towards gay marriages. The issue of how to
treat childless couples did not come up in any of my earlier comments, and I have
answered this question in my previous post.
> Of COURSE my argument was logical! If Patrick thinks gays shouldn't marry
> because they can't bear children, then he's also dismissing heterosexual couples
> who cannot either!
No, as I said in the previous post such couples have full adoption rights. Gays do
not, nor will they ever. I take this position because (you'll call this bigotry)
because I believe that a gay couple does not provide a proper home for a healthy,
normal child. It is an unfair burden to place on children, especially as they
mature sexually.
Patrick Coghlan
> Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>
> > With marriage comes the expectation of starting a family. As hard as
> > they may try, homosexual partners will never achieve equality in this
> > regard. Count on it.
>
> We've already asked you how, then, we should deal with heterosexual couples
> who have no intention of having children whatsoever, or couples who are
> infertile, or cannot bear children for medical reasons? What of THOSE people who
It's a fair question. Here's my answer.
You treat it the way Revenue Canada deals with a business loss. As long as the
business you have started up has a "reasonable expectation" of profit, you can
continue to deduct these losses year after year. In the end, if it turns out that
the business never makes a profit, then the expectation was wrong, but at least the
expectation was there to begin with, the the allowable deduction. The deducted
losses are not recaptured requiring you to pay back your tax deductions.
Every heterosexual couple of child bearing age has a "reasonable expectation" of
producing offspring. Much better than than a business has of producing a profit,
acutally. So, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
In the case of homosexual couples, there is no such reasonable expectation that they
will become parents.
Now, I suppose you could argue that people with medical problems etc. might choose
to adopt, but these people are treated on par as any other couple as potential
adoptive parents. Homosexuals are not.
> have no "expectations of starting a family"? How are they different from a
> homosexual couple? But no need to answer the question we've posed for a second
> time: we know it would only expose you as a hypocrite.
No hypocrisy here. We allow full marriage benefits to accrue to heterosexuals
because they can either produce children or can adopt children. This is one reason
why homosexual marriages will never be granted equal status with heterosexual
marriages, because doing the former would be one step in the door to full adoptive
rights and that, in my opinion, simply ain't gonna happen.
> Someone else (I forget which, you homophobic bigots all look the same to me)
> mentioned how gay couples were undermining family values. In another breath,
> that person also accused gays of desiring to build families. So that's the crux
> of your arguments? Gays threaten family values by attempting to build strong
> families? And your denial of their right to build families does what, exactly,
> to protect "family values"?
It makes a mockery of what 98% of society calls a marriage.
> Seems to me like you're the worst enemy of "family values". No wonder you
> sloping-forehead neanderthals always end up the butt of the joke. But that's all
> I've come to expect from bigots: glaring contradictions in their stance,
> whatever it may be. That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than
> logical. And as such, you possess no credibility.
I operate by simple rules. I leave emotion out as a variable.
Rickkins
Gays...let 'em marry, let them do whatever they want, but keep
them the hell away from children. In a free society they should
have the right to be with whomever they choose but that right
should no extend to exposing said lifestyle to children. I think
its tough enough being a kid these days.Nor should
they expect state funds set aside for families.
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:58:03 GMT, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
<jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Michael T. Richter" wrote:
>
>> The actual issue *I'm* addressing is hypocrisy. (Since you apparently can't
>> figure this out on your own, I've changed the subject header to reflect the
>> focus.) In particular I'm addressing the hypocrisy which says something
>> like "your arguments are all emotional; mine are all logical" in a post
>> which contains so much illogic that it boggles the mind. It seems that in
>> common parlance "logical" now simply means "agrees with my own particular
>> brand of bigotry" and "illogical" merely means "disagrees with my own
>> particular brand of bigotry".
>
> Oh, how I hate having to explain things. Especially obvious things.
>
> The argument isn't whether Patrick is a bigot, you poor confused befuddled
>child. It's that Patrick believes gays shouldn't marry because they cannot bear
>children, while ignoring heterosexual couples who cannot either.
>
> See, THAT'S the argument. THAT'S the faulty logic.
>
> "Sloping-forehead neanderthal" is the conclusion. It's gratuitous. It's the
>cherry on the sundae. I can call him "mister", or I can call him "fuckwit" (now
>where did I see that word?), but it does not in the least change the argument
>above, that of Patrick's contradictions, which he has yet to answer.
>
> Now, had I reproached him the use of insults AND called him a neanderthal,
>then your charge of hypocrisy might have some relevance. Which brings us to the
>next point:
>
>> Think again, fuckwit.
>
> Nice logical argument. Oh wait, might this be a clever ploy? By resorting to
>insults, while at the same time condemning me for doing the same, you are in
>fact demonstrating the futility of such practices?
>
> Or could it be that you've simply demonstrated the hypocrisy that you tried
>to accuse me of?
>
Marc Katt Lombart
<0NgzOHgqB4Lv6v...@4ax.com>:
>Ok, so I missed the original post, but I gotta toss in my two cents...
>Gays...let 'em marry, let them do whatever they want, but keep
>them the hell away from children. In a free society they should
>
Homophobe.
Marc
Marc Katt Lombart
>No, as I said in the previous post such couples have full adoption
>rights. Gays do not, nor will they ever. I take this position because
>(you'll call this bigotry)
>
Ah, not only are you a bigot, and a homophobe, but now you are a
prophet. Guess what fan boy, you are already proven wrong, for it is unlawful
to discrminate,or pass discriminating laws, against someone based on their
sexuality, so yes, by law, Gay couples can adopt. It is only homophobic
adoption boards to prevent it. Unfortunately it is hard to prove that
homophobia is the reason the boards reject homosexual couples.
Marc
Michael T. Richter
news:383349AA...@magma.ca...
> I take this position because (you'll call this bigotry) because I
> believe that a gay couple does not provide a proper home for a
> healthy, normal child.
And that *is*, in fact, bigotry, Patrick.
Michael T. Richter
news:383338E2...@sympatico.ca...
> But wait, you just AGREED with me that Patrick is a bigot!
Hey, bonehead. [knock, knock] Is there anybody in there?
I *AGREED* with you from the very beginning. Patrick is a bigot. This
doesn't, however, come even remotely close to changing "slope-headed
neanderthal" and its ilk into logical arguments. Since you yourself have
stated that people who don't use logical arguments have no credibility, you
*STILL* have no credibility.
> You see, my calling Patrick a Neanderthal qualifies as a subjective
> statement.
In a message in which you claim that anybody who doesn't use logical
arguments has no credibility.
> But how that dismisses in the least my claim that Patrick's arguments
> about the treatment of gays are contradictory is a secret known only
> to you.
Since I've never made such a claim, I'm afraid I'm going to have to label
this piece of prose with yet another fallacy: straw man.
> Of COURSE my argument was logical!
Yes. Ad hominem attacks and straw men are the pinacle of logical
achievement.
> I'm pointing out where you accused me of being a hypocrite.
Because you *ARE* a hypocrite, in the same way that Patrick is a bigot.
>> *YOU* played the "I'm so logical" game, not me. *YOU* have to suck it up
>> now.
> You yet have to show me how my argument against Patrick is anything BUT
> logical.
Ad hominem statements are not logical. Nor are straw men. You've used both
from your "oh so logical" high horse now.
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:SC55:EXCH]
>
> Ok, so I missed the original post, but I gotta toss in my two cents...
> Gays...let 'em marry, let them do whatever they want, but keep
> them the hell away from children. In a free society they should
> should no extend to exposing said lifestyle to children.
Why not?
Have you ever met a gay couple with kids?
Have you ever met people who grew up with gay parents?
From what I have seen, they end up just like everyone else.
On what do you base your opposition to gay people raising children?
I think
> its tough enough being a kid these days.Nor should
> they expect state funds set aside for families.
If funds are set aside for families, why should they be restricted
to heterosexual families?
Kevin
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:SC55:EXCH]
>
<snip>
> It makes a mockery of what 98% of society calls a marriage.
>
Excuse me?
How is two people who love each other for no other reason but they
feel the other person is special, and intend to care for
each other and make a home together "till death do them part"
making a mockery of what 98% of society calls a marriage?
I thought that was the quintisentiall essence of marriage.
Kevin
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:383338E2...@sympatico.ca...
> > But wait, you just AGREED with me that Patrick is a bigot!
>
> I *AGREED* with you from the very beginning. Patrick is a bigot. This
> doesn't, however, come even remotely close to changing "slope-headed
> neanderthal" and its ilk into logical arguments. Since you yourself have
> stated that people who don't use logical arguments have no credibility, you
> *STILL* have no credibility.
What are you, a freaking IDIOT (don't answer, I've already made up my mind)?
I don't GIVE A FLYING SHIT whether you agree with me that Patrick is a
Neanderthal or not! I don't even bother to try to demonstrate LOGICALLY that
he's a moron, because it's obvious that he's a moron (just as obvious as in your
case).
The only thing I cared about was to show that Patrick contradicted himself
in his rationalization of the treatment of gays.That has been done beyond a
shadow of a doubt. But apparently that's not even what you're nitpicking at. No,
you're being a royal pain in the ass to everyone here because you think that I
failed to present conclusive arguments to support my claim that Patrick is a
Neanderthal.
You poor pathetic fucking nerd. Go validate your own existence by debating
semantics with someone who gives a shit.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
> You poor pathetic fucking nerd. Go validate your own existence by
> debating semantics with someone who gives a shit.
"That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than logical. And as
such, you possess no credibility." -- Jacques E. Bouchard
And how quickly the facade of rationality crumbles. And here is the object
lesson: NOBODY is rational. N-O-B-O-D-Y.
Whenever you see *ANYONE* who claims that their arguments (or in this case
"reactions") are purely rational and coolly logical, you know for a fact
that you're dealing with a liar or a deluded fool.
Jacques E. Bouchard, a man who prides himself (digression: what goes before
a fall again?) on his logical mind, required only a day or so of prodding to
be turned into a raving loon. His reactions are just as emotional as
anybody else's. Including the reactions of Patrick Coghlan. Or my own, for
that matter.
For him to claim that those whose reactions are emotional have no
credibility is the height of arrogance, the height of hubris, and ultimately
the height of hypocrisy.
So what can Jacques learn from all of this? That depends very much on his
person and how prideful he is. The odds are that he will come away from
this still displaying pride at his logical, not emotional, reactions. Why
do I say this? A lot of experience. Still, there is an outside chance that
he will come away with a minor insight: any claims of intrinsic superiority
are bound to bite back and bite back hard.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> So what can Jacques learn from all of this? That depends very much on his
> person and how prideful he is. The odds are that he will come away from
> this still displaying pride at his logical, not emotional, reactions. Why
> do I say this? A lot of experience. Still, there is an outside chance that
> he will come away with a minor insight: any claims of intrinsic superiority
> are bound to bite back and bite back hard.
Oh my, we are full of ourselves, aren't we? Michael Richter is the freaking
Yoda of the internet! His mission in life is to haunt the realms of cyberspace,
his face pallid from too little sunlight, and point out to others their faulty
logic. Whasa matter, Michael, the Trekkie chatroom is temporarily closed?
You want to know what I have learned - or rather, what I have been reminded
of? That time is too valuable to waste it on pinheads who love to argue
semantics only for the sake of arguing. I have been reminded that life is full
of little speed bumps and dips, who can only validate their own existence by the
reaction they cause in others. I have been reminded that one can waste precious
resources by being dragged into arguing with said dips.
The only service you have rendered, Michael Richter, is to remind us all of
your own insignificance.
Thank you.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
"That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than logical. And as
such, you possess no credibility." -- Jacques E. Bouchard
> Michael Richter is the freaking Yoda of the internet!
^
The distinct sign of an emotional reaction.
> His mission in life is to haunt the realms of cyberspace, his
> face pallid from too little sunlight, and point out to others
> their faulty logic.
If you pay close attention, you can actually *SEE* the point whooshing by
over Jacques' head.
> Whasa matter, Michael, the Trekkie chatroom is temporarily
> closed?
Another ad hominem: logical or emotional reaction?
> The only service you have rendered, Michael Richter, is to remind us
> all of your own insignificance.
And yet another ad hominem.
As predicted, Jacques continues on in his pride at his "logic" and
"unemotional reactions", blithely unaware of his deep contradiction.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> If you pay close attention, you can actually *SEE* the point whooshing by
> over Jacques' head.
I'll tell you about points "whooshing" over someone's head, Michael. It's
the way you've been trying so hard, and for so long, to demonstrate that if I
exhibit illogical behaviour, then somehow, through the magic of specious
reasoning known only to you, it renders Patrick's argument not illogical.
"You were illogical in calling Patrick a Neanderthal, therefore you
cannot accuse his statement of being illogical".
In other words: "Since your behaviour is illogical", you say, "then
Patrick's argument is not necessarily illogical".
Uh? What the fuck? I have no idea how you get from point A to point B. I
suspect that the philosophers of the world would no more have insight into
your twisted little psyche than I have. Michael Richter, great mind of our
times (notice the sarcasm?) has established a new school of thought: the
INTRINSIC logic of one person's statement is entirely dependant on the logic
of a second person.
In other words, Michael Richter, you're trying to convince us that the
weather in Toronto depends on what time they have tea in England.
Now, rational people understandably feel puzzled at this specious
reasoning, straight out of "Alice in Wonderland". But Michael Richter has got
a death grip on his little theory, and any attempts by anyone to show him
that point A and point B do NOT follow are swept aside as he repeats, over
and over, "Since your behaviour is illogical, then Patrick's argument is not
necessarily illogical", ad nauseam.
And when, sooner or later, reasonable people throw up their arms and give
up this futile exercise, Micheal Richter gloats "I won! I won!".
Michael Richter - the kind of person who probably begins every other
sentence with "Actually,..." because he's one of those incredibly annoying
people who feels compelled to argue irrelevant points to death rather than
address the actual issue - claims victory because he's worn down the
opposition.
Congratulations, Michael Richter, you've won because I gave up arguing
with an idiot. Actually, I shouldn't be so quick to judge: you're probably
not entirely an idiot. I simply suspect a serious drug problem. Not enough of
them, that's what.
> Another ad hominem: logical or emotional reaction?
Spite, Michael. Full-fledged, fully-deserved spite. At your expense.
> Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
I see that you call your own page "vanity press". Not at all surprising,
and every meaning of the expression applies. I also see a section on
role-playing games (guess my "Trekkie chatroom" and "nerd" comments weren't
so far off, after all).
And, perhaps most telling of all, there is a section on book reading and
writing, a section that, in your own words, is "planned but not yet
implemented". How very typical. Closet intellectual who aspires to lofty
practices, but hasn't quite gotten around to it yet for fear of discovering
that he may not quite be up to the challenge. If I had a nickel for every
literary charlatan parading as a so-called writer who could only manage to
pen derivative pap in a desperate effort to obtain peer approval... well, you
know how the expression goes.
You're a stereotype, Michael Richter. Not even a very complex one, at
that.
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
>> If you pay close attention, you can actually *SEE* the point
>> whooshing by over Jacques' head.
> I'll tell you about points "whooshing" over someone's head, Michael.
And you *STILL* don't get it.
*YOU* are the one who said that "emotional reactions" mean you have "no
credibility". *YOU* said it. *NOT* me.
*I* merely pointed out that you've been showing emotional reactions in
spades. Thus, by *YOUR* words, I should not be granting you any credibility
whatsoever. *YOUR* words, *NOT* mine.
And at *NO* point in stating my position did I say I disagreed with you
about Patrick. Nowhere. Not once. I just pointed out an internal
contradiction in your arrogant statement.
I'm not sure how I can make this point any more obvious without tying it to
a brick and hitting your repeatedly in the face with it.
> "You were illogical in calling Patrick a Neanderthal, therefore you
> cannot accuse his statement of being illogical".
Since I said nothing of the sort, I guess we'll have to chalk this up to
another straw man.
>> Another ad hominem: logical or emotional reaction?
> Spite, Michael. Full-fledged, fully-deserved spite. At your expense.
An emotional reaction, in other words. Thus, by your own words, you have no
credibility.
"That's because your reaction is emotional, rather than logical. And as
such, you possess no credibility." -- Jacques E. Bouchard
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
Neil Tupper
<jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Congratulations, Michael Richter, you've won because I gave up arguing
>with an idiot. Actually, I shouldn't be so quick to judge: you're probably
>not entirely an idiot. I simply suspect a serious drug problem. Not enough of
>them, that's what.
>
>
Well that was quite a pissing war between you, and I'm afraid
you got soaked, Jacques.
Neil
Jacques E. Bouchard
Please don't try to tackle things that are above you.
jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
> *YOU* are the one who said that "emotional reactions" mean you have "no
> credibility". *YOU* said it. *NOT* me.
>
> *I* merely pointed out that you've been showing emotional reactions in
> spades. Thus, by *YOUR* words, I should not be granting you any credibility
> whatsoever. *YOUR* words, *NOT* mine.
>
> And at *NO* point in stating my position did I say I disagreed with you
> about Patrick. Nowhere. Not once. I just pointed out an internal
> contradiction in your arrogant statement.
So basically, you're saying that since I was being emotional then you
shouldn't give credence to my statement that Patrick is a bigot - only you
happen to AGREE that Patrick is a bigot...
???????????
And to think that I accused you of nitpicking...
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
news:38346E60...@sympatico.ca...
>> *YOU* are the one who said that "emotional reactions" mean you have
>> "no credibility". *YOU* said it. *NOT* me.
>> *I* merely pointed out that you've been showing emotional reactions
>> in spades. Thus, by *YOUR* words, I should not be granting you any
>> credibility whatsoever. *YOUR* words, *NOT* mine.
>> And at *NO* point in stating my position did I say I disagreed with
>> you about Patrick. Nowhere. Not once. I just pointed out an
>> internal contradiction in your arrogant statement.
> So basically, you're saying that since I was being emotional then you
> don't give credence to my statement that Patrick is a bigot - only you
> happen to AGREE that Patrick is a bigot...
> ???????????
> And to think that I accused you of wasting time by debating irrelevant
> points...
[sigh]
OK, stated as clearly as is possible you still didn't get it. Does somebody
out there have a brick I can borrow? I have to print out the point, wrap it
around the brick and smash the conglomerate repeatedly into Jacques' face
until he comprehends.
Or I can try again, using simple words and bullet points. Read each point
slowly. Sound out the big words so that you understand them. Don't move on
to the next point until you understand the current one.
1) You said that "emotional reactions" give you "no credibility".
Got it?
2) You, in the same message, showed obvious signs of emotional reactions.
Do you understand this?
3) This is hypocritical.
Do we have comprehension?
4) I pointed this out to you.
5) I did not mention Patrick's stupid beliefs at all, and indeed explicitly
excluded them from the subject header.
That was two points. I hope I didn't lose you.
6) You persist in dragging Patrick's stupid beliefs back into the argument.
7) In the process you get more and more emotional in your responses.
8) And remember, you say that "emotional reactions" give you "no
credibility".
Now that was three. Let me know when I'm going too fast.
9) After several restatements of this very simple concept, you still persist
in trying to drag Patrick's stupid beliefs in a desperate, irrational bid to
avoid the obvious fact that you're a complete hypocrite and fraud.
Conclusion: You're an idiot. Your only worth is the entertainment I derive
by toying with you.
Michael T. Richter
You just can't control yourself, can you?
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38347070...@sympatico.ca...
> "Michael T. Richter" wrote:
>
> > *YOU* are the one who said that "emotional reactions" mean you have "no
> > credibility". *YOU* said it. *NOT* me.
> >
> > *I* merely pointed out that you've been showing emotional reactions in
> > spades. Thus, by *YOUR* words, I should not be granting you any
credibility
> > whatsoever. *YOUR* words, *NOT* mine.
> >
> > And at *NO* point in stating my position did I say I disagreed with you
> > about Patrick. Nowhere. Not once. I just pointed out an internal
> > contradiction in your arrogant statement.
>
> So basically, you're saying that since I was being emotional then you
> shouldn't give credence to my statement that Patrick is a bigot - only you
> happen to AGREE that Patrick is a bigot...
>
> ???????????
>
> And to think that I accused you of nitpicking...
>
>
>
>
> jaybee
>
>
Jacques E. Bouchard
> And now you've graduated to posting the same message multiple times.
>
> You just can't control yourself, can you?
I cancelled the first one, but apparently your server didn't accept it.
Minor change in the second version. If you read my posts you would have noticed
it.
jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Since the beginning I've watched you call me a dolt and a dick "for
> resulting to personal insults"
This should read "resorting to personal insults". I fully expect Michael
Richter, however, to swoop down on this little typo and exploit fully as a form of
ridicule. Petty nitpicking, nothing less than what I've come to expect from him.
Unless, however, he happens to see THIS post and restrains himself just in the
nick of time, the lucky dolt.
jaybee
Marc Katt Lombart
<38343DAD...@americasm01.nt.com>:
>Have you ever met a gay couple with kids?
>
I have, their doing a real good job.
Marc
Marc Katt Lombart
<3SWY3.102$z43...@198.235.216.4>:
>Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote in message
>news:383349AA...@magma.ca...
>> I take this position because (you'll call this bigotry) because I
>> believe that a gay couple does not provide a proper home for a
>> healthy, normal child.
>
>And that *is*, in fact, bigotry, Patrick.
>
I don't recall if it is bigotry, but it is stupid. To make such claims,
pulling the data out of thin air.
Marc
Jacques E. Bouchard
know you read both, but that you didn't notice the correction only goes to show
that you don't really bother to understand what I write, which explains why I
have to explain things to you so damn often.
I've made the correction in the quoted text. I don't actually expect you to
read that, either.
"Michael T. Richter" wrote:
> Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:38346E60...@sympatico.ca...
> > So basically, you're saying that since I was being emotional then you
> > shouldn't give credence to my statement that Patrick is a bigot - only you
> > happen to AGREE that Patrick is a bigot...
>
> > ???????????
>
> > And to think that I accused you of wasting time by debating irrelevant
> > points...
>
> 1) You said that "emotional reactions" give you "no credibility".
>
> 2) You, in the same message, showed obvious signs of emotional reactions.
>
> 3) This is hypocritical.
You missed one point, Michael Richter. It should read:
"2a) Jacques in turn asked for credibility."
Only there never WAS a point 2a), was there? For your claim of hypocrisy to
hold water, I would have had to say or imply or EXPECT that you should give me
credence, but not Patrick. That's the soft, creamy center of your crunchy
argument, isn't it? See, that's why I'm calling you an idiot for jumping from
point A to point Z without going through the normal channels of logic. I'd hate
to see your programming.
I'm not asking for a freaking leap of faith, I'm EXPECTING you to use the 1
1/2 brain cells necessary to see the facts and come to the same conclusion. All
I did was hand Patrick the rope with which to hang himself; I didn't tell anyone
"Trust me, I'm right on this". Patrick's reply to my pointed question spoke for
itself, without the need for anyone to "believe" in me.
And before you stupidly repeat that "Patrick's argument has nothing to do
with this", let me correct you: it has EVERYTHING TO DO with this! The very
NATURE of his argument made it so I did NOT have to ask for any sort of
credibility whatsoever! And since, as such, my credibility is no longer an
issue, it makes your point moot. Hence your effort to dismiss Patrick's argument
to begin with, to protect your own ass.
Let me repeat: since I didn't make a tearful plea for people to BELIEVE me
(but not Patrick), then your entire claim of hypocrisy is MOOT! (please read
this key sentence several times lest I need to hammer it into your minuscule
brain again).
Once more: your entire claim of my hypocrisy is that I am asking for
credibility for me but not Patrick, which I didn't.
In other words: I'm not saying "You should believe me but not him", I'm
saying just look at the fucking facts and see for yourselves.
Conclusion: MY CREDIBILITY HAS NO FUCKING PLAY IN THE MATTER!
See, before I saw this post to which I am replying I was going to e-mail you
and put the entire thing to rest. But you know what Michael Richter, you're
simply too big a prick for me to even extend a hand.
Since the beginning I've watched you call me a dolt and a dick "for
resulting to personal insults", and I've seen you screaming at me for getting
too emotional. And throughout, your main accusation has been that I'm a
hypocrite (!!)
You want to talk of credibility, Michael Richter? Start by working on your
own, you freak.
jaybee
Rickkins
Michael
> > But wait, you just AGREED with me that Patrick is a bigot!
>
>
> doesn't, however, come even remotely close to changing "slope-headed
> neanderthal" and its ilk into logical arguments. Since you yourself have
> stated that people who don't use logical arguments have no credibility, you
> *STILL* have no credibility.
I'd like to point out that some slope-headed neanderthals are very nice
people and it is unfair to promote negative stereotypes of them.
Michael
Patrick Coghlan
> If two people love each other and want to take the best care of children
> they can,
> why should they be denied?
Because the rights of a child to be raised in a normal environment supercede the rights of homosexuals to experience
parenthood through adoption.
> Single parenting can work out quite well, I don't see how homosexual
> parenting can
> be any worse (and in many ways I can see it being better). The problem
> with homosexual
> parenting is that people refuse to accept it, merely because it is
> different.
I suppose you feel an adolescent male would "adjust" quite well to having gay men around the house embracing each other, as
well as their friends.
You might not have a problem putting a teen in such an environment, but most people would. This is why full adoption rights
will never accrue to homosexual couples.
> You have yet to give one real reason to not allow homosexuals to have
> children other than
> "it is different and some people don't like things that are different".
Growing up in Costa Rica is "different". Having gay parents is problematic for most normal teens.
Patrick Coghlan
> Patrick Coghlan wrote:
> > You treat it the way Revenue Canada deals with a business loss. As long as the
> > business you have started up has a "reasonable expectation" of profit, you can
> > continue to deduct these losses year after year. In the end, if it turns out that
> > the business never makes a profit, then the expectation was wrong, but at least the
> > expectation was there to begin with, the the allowable deduction. The deducted
> > losses are not recaptured requiring you to pay back your tax deductions.
>
> Your answer is a crock Patrick. You may be able to draw a reasonable
> analogy between a heterosexual family who are *trying* (but failing) to
> have children and a business which is trying but failing to make a
> profit.
> You cannot with any credibility draw the same analogy between a hetero
> family which is either unable or unwilling to have children and the same
> business, it just doesn't wash and is simply a bit of obfuscation
> intended
> to cover up basic bigotry.
If 50% of couples ended up childless and the rest produced children then you may have a
point, but the fact is that almost all heterosexual couples in long-term relationships
produce children at some point, so there are very few "non-producers" to weed out.
If you grant marriage benefits to heterosexual couples in anticipation of children being
produced at some point in their lives, you will have "guessed right" 90% of the time.
> > Every heterosexual couple of child bearing age has a "reasonable expectation" of
> > producing offspring. Much better than than a business has of producing a profit,
> > acutally. So, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> And when there *is* no doubt ? Would you be pleased if revenue Canada
> decided that if you wished to receive marriage tax benefits you and your
> (hetero) partner would have to submit to a fertility test ? Remember, if
You and I both know that isn't going to happen, but I will concede that marriage benefits
are granted to heterosexuals that will never become natural parents. A better example to
bolster your argument is the marriage involving a woman who is post-menopausal. She won't
be giving birth, yet she receives property rights, pension benefits etc. immediately upon
marriage. However, such a person will either most likely already *have* children, and
society is quite willing to extend the rights and privileges of marriage to her.
> > In the case of homosexual couples, there is no such reasonable expectation that they
> > will become parents.
>
> What a crock...many *ARE* parents...
In the case of two males, virtually never, except in cases where a husband came out of the
closet. Even in the case of such an individual, his partner will typically not function
in the role of 'mother' of the child.
> > Now, I suppose you could argue that people with medical problems etc. might choose
> > to adopt, but these people are treated on par as any other couple as potential
> > adoptive parents. Homosexuals are not.
>
> Since when ? Homosexuals can adopt, why should they not be extended
> the
> same benefits...looks, smells and tastes like homophobia to me.
The rights of a child to be raised in a normal environment are paramount and supercede the
rights of homosexuals to be treated on par with heterosexuals.
> > We allow full marriage benefits to accrue to heterosexuals because they can
> > either produce children or can adopt children. This is one reason why
> > homosexual marriages will never be granted equal status with heterosexual
> > marriages, because doing the former would be one step in the door to full adoptive
> > rights and that, in my opinion, simply ain't gonna happen.
>
> You know Patrick, these arguments are very similar to those which
> used
> to be used to try to keep blacks and "coloureds" down. When are you
> going
> to accept that you are simply spouting an irrational, homophobic bigotry
> which has no objective support and is simply an attempt to suppress a
> lifestyle which you find personally distasteful ?
My reasons are not irrational. They represent what I feel are in the best interest of
children.
If my wife and I drove off a cliff tomorrow, I would want our children to be raised by
heterosexual parents or individuals, because all things being equal this would provide the
best environment for their upbringing and psychological well-being.
> > It makes a mockery of what 98% of society calls a marriage.
>
> And just who says that 98% of society is right ? 98% of society
> used to think slavery was "OK"...did that make it "right" ? A union
> of 1 man and up to 5 women is called a "marriage" sanctioned by God
> by the majority of people on earth...we don't, who is right, the
> majority who do or our minority who don't ?
The numbers are different, but the concept is the same (husband & wife/wives).
Marc Katt Lombart
>If 50% of couples ended up childless and the rest produced children then
>you may have a point, but the fact is that almost all heterosexual
>couples in long-term relationships
>
50% of heterosexual couples SPLIT UP. Should we then deny them the right
to have been married in the first place?
Marc
Michael Voytinsky
Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Because the rights of a child to be raised in a normal environment
> supercede the rights of homosexuals to experience parenthood through
> adoption.
I have this feeling that the people who go on about how homosexual
parents do not provide a "normal environment" have never actually met a
homosexual couple with a kid.
> Growing up in Costa Rica is "different". Having gay parents is
>problematic for most normal teens.
Of course, your arguments can apply just as easily to inter-racial
adoptions. Do you want to argue about whether or not those are a good
idea?
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DanS
Rickkins <rick...@repairman.com> wrote in message
news:qo40OC6FZS5=f=VmQ0b7o1k=LT...@4ax.com...
Michael T. Richter
> Conclusion: MY CREDIBILITY HAS NO FUCKING PLAY IN THE MATTER!
Whatever. It's not as if you've had a lot of credibility to begin with.
As I said, your own words tell us that nothing you say should be taken as
credible. And you *STILL* react solely with emotional reactions. Indeed
you're only getting more and more emotional as this thread develops. Where
I derive amusement, you derive intense frustration, getting more and more
lunatic as time goes on. Soon you'll be rivalling John Robertson and John
Lauzon for ott.general kook.
> See, before I saw this post to which I am replying I was going to
> e-mail you and put the entire thing to rest. But you know what
> Michael Richter, you're simply too big a prick for me to even extend
> a hand.
Aw! Now that hurt. (Are you sarcasm detectors sounding?)
"I was going to take you off my enemies list, but now I'm going to keep you
there" is something that I gave up on as a tactic about 27 years ago. I was
in grade I or II at the time.
> You want to talk of credibility, Michael Richter? Start by working on
> your own, you freak.
You really have no self-control whatsoever, do you?
Since you're being unusually thick, I'll say this again: when you can find
me saying emotional reactions mean that a person has no credibility, then
you can point to my own emotional reactions as hypocrisy. Since you can't
find this kind of statement, you can't play this card. You'll have to find
something else on which I'm hypocritical. (And there are indeed things
which I am hypocritical about. I'm a human being. Human beings are
hypocrits by nature.)
Now I'll make a prediction. You're going to keep responding to me over and
over and over again because you simply can't control yourself. Your
self-image is incompatible with the obvious hypocrisy you demonstrate with
every post, and you're not willing to modify that self-image nor your
behaviour. This puts you into a flight-or-fight trap you cannot escape.
Kevin Rockel
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Kevin Rockel wrote:
>
> > If two people love each other and want to take the best care of children
> > they can,
> > why should they be denied?
>
> Because the rights of a child to be raised in a normal environment supercede the rights of homosexuals to experience
> parenthood through adoption.
Define normal.
Not very long ago, it meant that black people could not adopt. It meant
that Jewish
people could not adopt.
Why is your definition of normal that excludes homosexuals any better
than the
definition of normal that includes them?
>
> > Single parenting can work out quite well, I don't see how homosexual
> > parenting can
> > be any worse (and in many ways I can see it being better). The problem
> > with homosexual
> > parenting is that people refuse to accept it, merely because it is
> > different.
>
> I suppose you feel an adolescent male would "adjust" quite well to having gay men around the house embracing each other, as
> well as their friends.
As a matter of fact, having seen and adolescent male in similar
circumstances (only two
females) I can reasonably say that it appears to work out fine. I see no
reason why
two male parents would be any different.
>
> You might not have a problem putting a teen in such an environment, but most people would. This is why full adoption rights
> will never accrue to homosexual couples.
That was what they said about allowing blacks into areas where white
folks were. What they
said of allowing blacks into white schools.
Once people get over their unjustified fear of homosexuality, people
will wonder why there
ever was a problem to begin with.
>
> > You have yet to give one real reason to not allow homosexuals to have
> > children other than
> > "it is different and some people don't like things that are different".
>
> Growing up in Costa Rica is "different". Having gay parents is problematic for most normal teens.
Why?
Where is your evidence to support this assertion?
Kevin
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Jacques E. Bouchard <jebou...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:383485C8...@sympatico.ca...
> > Conclusion: MY CREDIBILITY HAS NO FUCKING PLAY IN THE MATTER!
>
> Whatever.
Ah. So you agree with the points I made (which you deleted) and which arrive
at that conclusion. Therefore, your entire point is moot, isn't it?
> It's not as if you've had a lot of credibility to begin with.
Golly, you sure spend a lot of time writing to and about people without
credibility, don't you? Sounds like a feeble attempt at getting the last word,
Michael Richter. It sounds like the pouty response of someone who's been
confronted with undeniable arguments he cannot refute (and which he leaves out
of the quoted text altogether).
> As I said, your own words tell us that nothing you say should be taken as
> credible. And you *STILL* react solely with emotional reactions.
I react with spite because you're worth little more, Michael Richter. I
don't make the effort to have a rational discourse with you, because you are
irrational.
> > See, before I saw this post to which I am replying I was going to
> > e-mail you and put the entire thing to rest. But you know what
> > Michael Richter, you're simply too big a prick for me to even extend
> > a hand.
>
> Aw! Now that hurt. (Are you sarcasm detectors sounding?)
>
> "I was going to take you off my enemies list, but now I'm going to keep you
> there" is something that I gave up on as a tactic about 27 years ago. I was
> in grade I or II at the time.
Actually, I was going to ask for peace. "Michael", I was going to say,
"let's agree to disagree for the sake of harmony".
But by spitting in the face of that gesture, you're showing us all that
you're an even bigger prick that I had originally thought you. I am glad I
haven't made my attempt at seeking peace. You are not deserving of it, Michael
Richter. You can only project your own vain self-absorbtion on others, assuming
that since YOU'RE sorely incapable of altruism, then others are as well.
> > You want to talk of credibility, Michael Richter? Start by working on
> > your own, you freak.
>
> Since you're being unusually thick, I'll say this again: when you can find
> me saying emotional reactions mean that a person has no credibility, then
> you can point to my own emotional reactions as hypocrisy.
Oh christ, now he's completely delusional!
The entire point of this futile thread was that my emotional reactions
stripped me of credibility! In EVERY SINGLE post you addressed this issue! Just
above, you said the following:
1) "It's not as if you've had a lot of credibility to begin with"
[...]
2) "As I said, your own words tell us that nothing you say should be taken
as
credible. And you *STILL* react solely with emotional reactions."
Translation: "By being emotional, you have had no credibility". Now here's
where you intervene and rush to correct me that you're only repeating what I
said, that the statement isn't really true. Bullshit, Michael Richter. These are
your own words: statement 1) is your DIRECT conclusion of statement 2)! Go on
Michael Richter, convince us that you didn't write this. Tell us how it's really
Klingon code, and that we need your decoder ring to realize that you were
obviously saying something else!
So here you dare me - once again - to give you enough rope to hang yourself
with. Here are your own words once again, Michael Richter, stripped of the
semantic bullshit: "Jacques has no credibility because Jacques' reaction is
emotional" This coming from the man who certainly hasn't refrained from using
violent analogies (such as the brick in the face). Aren't WE being the emotional
one! So tell me, Michael Richter, how much credibility should I consequently
give YOU?
Yes, Michael Richter, I find you to be a pathetic, spiteful, vindictive
little hypocrite of a man. It would be one level of hypocrisy had I actually
asked for credibility while denying it Patrick, but it's a particularly
contemptible brand of hypocrisy for you to storm in, indulge liberally in ad
hominem attacks (as you like to use the word so often) while accusing me of...
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS!
In your fight against perceived hypocrisy, you've commited the blackest,
most vile hypocrisy yourself, Michael Richter. You're a vain, self-righteous
ass.
> Since you can't
> find this kind of statement, you can't play this card. You'll have to find
> something else on which I'm hypocritical.
See above. Not only are you being hypocritical, but you're blind to your own
words. Too busy to gloat at the sound of your own voice, you forget to listen to
the words you say.
> (And there are indeed things
> which I am hypocritical about. I'm a human being. Human beings are
> hypocrits by nature.)
No Michael Richter. Assholes are hypocritical by nature.
> Now I'll make a prediction. You're going to keep responding to me over and
> over and over again because you simply can't control yourself.
> Your
> self-image is incompatible with the obvious hypocrisy you demonstrate with
> every post, and you're not willing to modify that self-image nor your
> behaviour. This puts you into a flight-or-fight trap you cannot escape.
That's it Michael, continue calling me a "hypocrite", if you do it often
enough (and leave out the undeniable arguments I make pointing to YOUR
hypocrisy), then MAYBE you'll manage to pull the wool over other people's eyes.
You've already been compared, in a parallel thread, to Peter Saly, the butt of
all the jokes in Canadian newsgroups. I had to chuckle at the comparison,
because, like him, you'll argue a moot point to death only to get the last word,
blind to your own contradictions.
However, as much as I'd love to stay and run circles around your hobbling
logic, I have promised myself that I'd stop when the message count in this
thread reached 30. This is number 29, and I KNOW that you'll jump on #30 to get
the last word, because while you accuse others of being unable to stop, you
certainly can't make the effort yourself.
So I'm stopping it, Michael Richter, this is my last post in this thread.
Can we say the same about your inevitable reply, the post you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT
avoid writing? Can you leave well-enough alone?
No, you can't. You can't practice what you reproach others of not doing.
Because you are a hypocrite, Michael Richter.
Go on, write the last post. Entertain us with your convoluted logic on how
your trying to get the last word, when I have already abandoned the thread,
isn't REALLY an attempt to get the last word. Give us more of that priceless
Michael Richter bullshit. If it is true that people are truly happy when they
practice the thing at which they excel in life, then you must be giddy with
bliss.
*plonk*
jaybee
Michael T. Richter
>> As I said, your own words tell us that nothing you say should be
>> taken as credible. And you *STILL* react solely with emotional
> reactions.
> I react with spite because you're worth little more, Michael Richter.
You were reacting on pure emotion long before you and I first exchanged
messages.
> I don't make the effort to have a rational discourse with you,
> because you are irrational.
You don't make the effort to have rational discourse at all. You merely
want everyone else to make that effort. That's why I call it hypocrisy.
>>> See, before I saw this post to which I am replying I was going
>>> to e-mail you and put the entire thing to rest. But you know
>>> what Michael Richter, you're simply too big a prick for me to
>>> even extend a hand.
>> Aw! Now that hurt. (Are you sarcasm detectors sounding?)
>> "I was going to take you off my enemies list, but now I'm going to
>> keep you there" is something that I gave up on as a tactic about
>> 27 years ago. I was in grade I or II at the time.
> Actually, I was going to ask for peace. "Michael", I was going to
> say, "let's agree to disagree for the sake of harmony".
Sure you were.
> But by spitting in the face of that gesture, you're showing us all
> that you're an even bigger prick that I had originally thought you.
What gesture? The only gesture you made outside of your imagination was
"you're simply too big a prick for me to even extend a hand".
Do you have a martyr complex as well as all your other complexes?
> [...] assuming that since YOU'RE sorely incapable of altruism [...]
Nik: would you care to address the issue of altruism?
> The entire point of this futile thread was that my emotional reactions
> stripped me of credibility!
Yes, that was the entire point. By *YOUR WORDS* emotional reactions make
for no credibility. *YOUR WORDS*, not mine.
> Translation: "By being emotional, you have had no credibility".
Now a correct translation: "By your own words being emotional means having
no credibility." When are you planning to complete that remedial English
course?
> No Michael Richter. Assholes are hypocritical by nature.
So you're an asshole? That doesn't come as a surprise.
> So I'm stopping it, Michael Richter, this is my last post in this
> thread.
Time will tell.
> Can we say the same about your inevitable reply, the post you ABSOLUTELY
> CANNOT avoid writing? Can you leave well-enough alone?
Sorry. I've already played this game (and you've already failed the test).
Try to come up with something original for a change. So far all you've done
is copy my technique -- badly.
> *plonk*
Woo-hoo! I'm in another killfile!
Nikolaus Maack
>Nik: would you care to address the issue of altruism?
(You asked for it, Mike.)
Michael Richter is a nice guy. Possibly one of the nicest guys I have
ever met. Beneath his brash exterior keeping all of you at bay, is
one of the softest hearted, charitable, and all around friendly
people. He has bought paintings from me, fed me, watered me, and on
numerous occasions has offered to buy me more art supplies with no
strings attached.
He often says the following phrase: "A good friend will help you
move. A real friend will help you move a body."
I sincerely believe that, were I accidentally to kill someone, Richter
would encourage me to turn myself in, all the while gladly helping me
to conceal the evidence. Now if *that* isn't altruism, I don't know
what is.
Unfortunately, Richter keeps giving me this list of people he would
like me to "accidentally" kill, which kind of ruins the gesture of
hiding the corpse. But never mind that.
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Jacques E. Bouchard
> "Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> >Nik: would you care to address the issue of altruism?
>
> (You asked for it, Mike.)
>
> Michael Richter is a nice guy. Possibly one of the nicest guys I have
> ever met.
Yes. And it's all so he can cash in on it later by asking those he
helped tell publically what a nice guy he is. Nothing like selfless
kindness, is there?
You may think he's a friend. I, however, think he's a vain,
self-centered prick. So vain, in fact, that by challenging him to write
one more post in order to get the last word I set a trap so crude and so
obvious that only a blind man could fall for it. A blind man, or an
extremely vain person, for whom saving face was more important than the
appearance of maturity.
I'm sure Michael Richter will reply to this post with "I know you are,
but what am I?" or something equally brilliant. However, since he's in my
killfile, I guess he'll have to ask someone else to tell us what a nice
guy he is ("Hey you, I gave you a dime for coffee once. Now get up and
make me look good") if I'm to see his reply.
Ho-hum.
jaybee
Ken
is darkly humorous in that more children is exactly what the world DOESN`T
need at the present time. As for the underlying biblical strictures (often
unspoken or denied), Leviticus suggests that not only should homosexuals not
be allowed to adopt, neither should people who eat clam chowder, enjoy
oysters, and love a lobster feed. After all, homosexuality is on a par with
shellfish regarding all this.
Ken & Laura Chaddock wrote in message <3833A3...@istar.ca>...
>Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> "Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote:
>>
>> > Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>> >
>> > > With marriage comes the expectation of starting a family. As hard
as
>> > > they may try, homosexual partners will never achieve equality in
this
>> > > regard. Count on it.
>> >
>> > We've already asked you how, then, we should deal with heterosexual
couples
>> > who have no intention of having children whatsoever, or couples who are
>> > infertile, or cannot bear children for medical reasons? What of THOSE
people who
>>
>> It's a fair question. Here's my answer.
>>
>> You treat it the way Revenue Canada deals with a business loss. As long
as the
>> business you have started up has a "reasonable expectation" of profit,
you can
>> continue to deduct these losses year after year. In the end, if it turns
out that
>> the business never makes a profit, then the expectation was wrong, but at
least the
>> expectation was there to begin with, the the allowable deduction. The
deducted
>> losses are not recaptured requiring you to pay back your tax deductions.
>
> Your answer is a crock Patrick. You may be able to draw a reasonable
>analogy between a heterosexual family who are *trying* (but failing) to
>have children and a business which is trying but failing to make a
>profit.
>You cannot with any credibility draw the same analogy between a hetero
>family which is either unable or unwilling to have children and the same
>business, it just doesn't wash and is simply a bit of obfuscation
>intended
>to cover up basic bigotry.
>
expectation" of
>> producing offspring. Much better than than a business has of producing a
profit,
>> acutally. So, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> And when there *is* no doubt ? Would you be pleased if revenue Canada
>decided that if you wished to receive marriage tax benefits you and your
>(hetero) partner would have to submit to a fertility test ? Remember, if
>simply "tax dodge" with no intention to produce a profit they penalize
>you
>(quite severely I might add...)
>
>> In the case of homosexual couples, there is no such reasonable
expectation that they
>> will become parents.
>
> What a crock...many *ARE* parents...
>
might choose
>> to adopt, but these people are treated on par as any other couple as
potential
>> adoptive parents. Homosexuals are not.
>
> Since when ? Homosexuals can adopt, why should they not be extended
>the
>same benefits...looks, smells and tastes like homophobia to me.
>
>
> Oh great hypocrisy Patrick, great hypocrisy.
>
>> We allow full marriage benefits to accrue to heterosexuals because they
can
>> either produce children or can adopt children. This is one reason why
>> homosexual marriages will never be granted equal status with heterosexual
>> marriages, because doing the former would be one step in the door to full
adoptive
>> rights and that, in my opinion, simply ain't gonna happen.
>
> You know Patrick, these arguments are very similar to those which
>used
>to be used to try to keep blacks and "coloureds" down. When are you
>going
>to accept that you are simply spouting an irrational, homophobic bigotry
>which has no objective support and is simply an attempt to suppress a
>lifestyle which you find personally distasteful ?
>
>
>
>
> And just who says that 98% of society is right ? 98% of society
>used to think slavery was "OK"...did that make it "right" ? A union
>of 1 man and up to 5 women is called a "marriage" sanctioned by God
>by the majority of people on earth...we don't, who is right, the
>majority who do or our minority who don't ?
>
>
> There is very *little* truth in this stance Patrick but it *is*
>full of much pure homophobia and bigotry.
>
>...Ken
Michael
>
> Kevin Rockel wrote:
>
> >
> > > I suppose you feel an adolescent male would "adjust" quite well to having gay men around the house embracing each other, as
> > > well as their friends.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, having seen and adolescent male in similar
> > circumstances (only two
> > females) I can reasonably say that it appears to work out fine. I see no
> > reason why
> > two male parents would be any different.
>
>
> > > Growing up in Costa Rica is "different". Having gay parents is problematic for most normal teens.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Where is your evidence to support this assertion?
>
Personally I don't care about the details about a loving parent or
parents. Two squids who love their kid (or an adopted kid, or anybody
who needs a home) are just fine with me. I love those stories about how
a cat adopts a gerbil and loves and protects it. Why shouldn't gay
people be given the same lattitude to adopt and protect an orphan in
need? Has it ever been proven that gay people are less responsible
guardians? No.
Michael
Nikolaus Maack
> You may think he's a friend. I, however, think he's a vain,
>self-centered prick.
You've only experienced him online. I've met him in person many, many
times. People on the internet are little more than human shaped
pieces of cardboard. Are you unaware of this?
Part of the irony is I knew he would be insulted when I publically
stated that he's a "nice guy". He hates it when people tell the world
what a secret softie he is. Isn't that funny? It's funny, jerkface.
Laugh, damn you! Laugh, or I will destroy this entire city with my
super powers!
Ken
in the case of thinly populated areas centuries ago, CREATE one. There is
nothing new in that--population shifts for any number of reasons are an
important part of history. De-population too, when resources ran out,
rivers shifted course and silted up harbours, and so on. As for the modern
age, the almost daily announcements re in vitro fertilization, etc. suggest
that even more fertility and fertilization developments are one the way.
Heterosexuals AND homosexuals will use them to start families if they so
wish. That too will help replenish the work force, along with immigration.
So really, there is no problem.
Dave Smith wrote in message <383616CF...@sympatico.ca>...
>Ken wrote:
>
>> Anti-gay insistence that marriage means children or the expectation
thereof
>> is darkly humorous in that more children is exactly what the world
DOESN`T
>> need at the present time. As for the underlying biblical strictures
(often
>> unspoken or denied), Leviticus suggests that not only should homosexuals
not
>> be allowed to adopt, neither should people who eat clam chowder, enjoy
>> oysters, and love a lobster feed. After all, homosexuality is on a par
with
>> shellfish regarding all this.
>
the old
>queens when they get old and sick and can't work anymore? No matter how
many
>children there are in the world, there will always be a need to replenish
the
>work force. Sure, there are lots of children in the 3rd world countries.
When
>North Americans become too old to work and end up in nursing homes, you can
be
>sure that they will rush over here to help us in or hour of need.
>
Patrick Coghlan
Dave Smith
Kevin Rockel
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Kevin Rockel wrote:
>
> > Patrick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you feel an adolescent male would "adjust" quite well to having gay men around the house embracing each other, as
> > > well as their friends.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, having seen and adolescent male in similar
> > circumstances (only two
> > females) I can reasonably say that it appears to work out fine. I see no
> > reason why
> > two male parents would be any different.
>
> Why not take a poll of teenage males about how they would feel then?
If teenage kids were able to make an informed choice, I would say go
ahead.
Polls based upon ignorance are not worth very much.
>
> > > Growing up in Costa Rica is "different". Having gay parents is problematic for most normal teens.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Where is your evidence to support this assertion?
>
> Just ask a teen.
All you will find out is that many people have a baseless fear of
homosexuals.
Pandering to that fear will not make it go away.
An attitude like yours would have kept blacks going to segregated
schools and
being kept at the back of the bus.
Rights are for everyone, even those we do not like or may be afraid of.
Kevin
Dave Smith
> Immigration has ALWAYS been used as a means to replenish a work force and,
> in the case of thinly populated areas centuries ago, CREATE one.
Immigration has been used to bolster the work force and boost the economy only
in a few countries like the US, Canada and Australia where there are vast
expanses of land and low indigenous populations. There certainly isn't massive
immigration to places like India and China, or numerous other counties in the
world. I would suggest that it has been somewhat self serving, and not
completely without negative consequences. Its not as if there are no negative
feelings toward the immigrants.
My point was that a reliance entirely upon immigrants to come and replenish the
work force is likely to result in a rapidly expanding influx of people of
different cultures with different values who will have no allegiance to the
elderly Canadians and little or no desire to support the social programs that
will be required to support a large aged population. An immigrant population
brought in just to care for these people will have voting rights and political
pressure to drop the support and leave us all out to dry.
> There is nothing new in that--population shifts for any number of reasons are
> an
> important part of history. De-population too, when resources ran out,
> rivers shifted course and silted up harbours, and so on. As for the modern
> age, the almost daily announcements re in vitro fertilization, etc. suggest
> that even more fertility and fertilization developments are one the way.
In vitro fertilization and other fertility procedures are still extremely
expensive and time consuming. It provides assistance for people who want to
overcome biological problems to bear and raise their own children. I certainly
cannot see it replaces current natural methods, and bringing in millions of new
immigrants to fill low paying jobs is likely to see them reproducing, using the
standard natural practices of heterosexual intercourse. Certainly you are not
suggesting that us good old Canadians will remain childless and retire, bringing
in some sort of asexual, non reproducing workforce to sustain us.
> Heterosexuals AND homosexuals will use them to start families if they so
> wish. That too will help replenish the work force, along with immigration.
> So really, there is no problem.
Artificial procedures sound like a very expensive and time consuming means of
reproducing which can be more more easily accomplished with a quick roll in the
way between two people of the opposite sex.
Troy
wrote:
>Immigration has ALWAYS been used as a means to replenish a work force and,
This is going to be off topic for this. But I think that instead of
spending the money to immagrate people from other countries to fill a
work force, the country should be concerned about spending the money
to educate the citizens it already has that are unable to afford
school because of increasing tuition costs.
They're taking jobs away from people that are already here, and could
be trained just as well as someone from another country.
Patrick Coghlan
> In article <3834D333...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > If you grant marriage benefits to heterosexual couples in anticipation
> of children being
> > produced at some point in their lives, you will have "guessed right"
> 90% of the time.
>
> How ironic that you choose the analogy of business to support
> your basis for the so-called "marriage benefits" (almost all of
> which, BTW, also apply to common law couples). Who in her right
> mind running a business would accept the 10% inefficiency of the
> "in anticipation of children" approach when the "wait and see"
> result-based approach is 100% efficient? A manager certainly
Because you have to wait for up to 25 years or more to get your answer. You
cannot make a decision in year one. Where's the irony in that?
> would not pay commission to the salespeople in anticipation of
> their generating business for the company; commission is paid
> only to those who have actually brought in business and in
> proportion to the amount of business (cf. the number of
I take it you've never been involved in designing compensation packages for
executives. Yes, there are performance bonuses, but they also involve
up-front guarantees of golden handshakes in case the presumed performance
doesn't pan out.
> Fortunately, our government, however inefficient it is in other
> respects, doesn't make this mistake because procreation is not a
> business and has nothing to do with "marriage benefits" such as
> survivor pension, OAS spousal allowance, "spousal amount" tax
> credit, spousal RRSP, certain "rollover" tax provisions etc.
I will go as far as to say that everyone has the right to a life partner,
but to argue that two gay men have the same economic interdependence as a
woman who leaves the workforce to take care of her children.
In addtition, if a spouse dies before age 55-60, the other spouse has the
financial responsibility for looking after the children - which is simply
almost never the case with homosexual males, as well as females to a high
degree.
> The government does confer financial benefits on parents for
> raising children (e.g. child care expenses tax deduction, "child
> tax benefit", GST credit for children, "equivalent-to-spouse" tax
> credit for single parents, publicly funded education, GST
> exemption for child care services, PST exemption for children's
> clothing). However, these "child benefits" apply to people who
> are actually raising children, not those who have raised children
> in the past or may potentially have children in the future, and
> almost all of them take into account the number of children in
> question.
Hah! You don't have kids and a salary over $50K, do you? I have a
stay-at-home wife and three kids. I get $42/month in child tax benefit
payments (actually, they go to my wife, the government prevents me from even
seeing the cheques as I am not the primary care giver - completely in line
with the left treating everyone as individuals) and just under $100/month in
tax credits for my wife.
From a tax point of view the government cares very little about how many
kids you have unless you are poor or require tax deductions for daycare
expenses.
See http://www.magma.ca/~pcoghlan/default.htm.
> In other words, what you consider as "marriage benefits" relate
> to couplehood, not parenthood; "child benefits" relate to
Since more than 90% of heterosexual couples produce children, it can easily
be argued that children are the reason that these benefits exist.
> The reality is that "marriage benefits" don't influence whether 2
> people enter into a committed relationship nor do they influence
> whether they have children. "Child benefits" may have some
That's because the government treats people with kids almost no different
from singles without kids, once your income is above $50K.
> influence on the decision to have children, especially the number
> of children, but they are based on actual children who are being
> raised, not potential children or former children who are now
> independent adults.
Ah, but things like pensions are available to surviving spouses in
recognition of the financial interdependence that existed during the
childbearing years. In spite of what newspapers like the Toronto Star would
have you believe, 30% of mothers still stay at home to raise their children.
Patrick Coghlan
> In article <3836E31D...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > Since more than 90% of heterosexual couples produce children, it can
> easily
> > be argued that children are the reason that these benefits exist.
>
> You can argue all you want. I just relish telling you that:
>
> 1) the Ontario omnibus same-sex couples legislation (Bill 5) has
> already extended these so-called "marriage benefits" to same-sex
> couples;
>
> 2) Quebec passed a similar omnibus legislation (Bill 32) May this
> year;
>
> 3) BC has enacted 4 statutes in recent years (the Family
> Relations Amendment Act 1997, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act
> (No. 2) 1998, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act 1999
> and the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act 1999) which extend the
> definition of "spouse" to same-sex couples;
>
> 4) the federal govt has already extended pension benefits to
> same-sex couples in the federal public sector (Bill C-78) and is
> planning to introduce an omnibus bill early next year; and
All of the above extend benefits, which doesn't phase me too much. I don't
agree with it, but it doesn't change my life or cause me to teach my
children that marriage has been redefined.
> 5) adoption of children by same-sex couples is already a fact in
> Ontario and BC (and IIRC Quebec).
Not on par with married/common-law couples.
The courts do not allow normal, healthy children to be adopted by two
homosexuals unrelated to the child.
You are talking about isolated cases where a child could not be placed or
was the biological child of one of the partners.
So, relish all you want, but recognition of homosexuals as partners is, and
will always be, 2nd class status to married heterosexuals. As it should be.
Michael Voytinsky
mrt...@chat.carleton.ca wrote:
> I've met him, and hung out with him many times. I, too, think he's a
> vain, self-centred prick.
>
> But so are most men I meet.
On the other hand, vast majority of women have a major, and irrational, fear
of spiders, and depend on men for spider removal and/or extermination. I
think it all balances out in the end.
Nikolaus Maack
>On the other hand, vast majority of women have a major, and irrational, fear
>of spiders, and depend on men for spider removal and/or extermination. I
>think it all balances out in the end.
I have an irrational fear of women who are irrationally afraid of
spiders. When a woman tells me she is afraid of spiders and she
doesn't know why, I run away. If she has a semi-rational explanation,
I'm not afraid.
Not long ago, I killed this enormous spider in the bathroom. It was
huge and swollen, like a kitten with eight legs. I crushed it with a
rolled up magazine. The spider exploded, squirting a thin brown juice
in all directions. When I mentioned this to Michelle, she suggested
the spider was pregnant.
Now I feel very guilty when I think of spiders.
Michael T. Richter
> So vain, in fact, that by challenging him to write one more
> post in order to get the last word I set a trap so crude and
> so obvious that only a blind man could fall for it.
And, indeed, you did fall for it -- right when you responded with this
copycat challenge one message after I issued the *SAME* challenge.
What a moron.
Nikolaus Maack
I require clarification here. When you say, "what a moron," do you
mean it in a dismissive way? That is, are you upset that he is such a
moron?
Or, are you impressed by just how much of a moron this person is? Are
you, in fact, almost overjoyed by the amazing moronic abilities he
displays?
I guess the difference could be described as follows:
Richter sneered and shook his head. "What a moron," he grumbled in
annoyance.
Richter laughed, amazed and bemused. "What a moron!" he exclaimed, a
sense of delighted awe in his voice.
I would appreciate it if you could get back to me on this matter as
soon as possible. It's these sorts of subtleties that make our lives
meaningful.
Michael T. Richter
news:38394159...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
>> What a moron.
> I require clarification here. When you say, "what a moron," do you
> mean it in a dismissive way? That is, are you upset that he is such a
> moron?
> Or, are you impressed by just how much of a moron this person is? Are
> you, in fact, almost overjoyed by the amazing moronic abilities he
> displays?
Consider it more "horrified fascination".
Paolo
At what point do you grow up and start contributing to these groups again?
I for one look forward to something a little more productive.
Thanks,
Paolo.
--
Paolo Pace
Black Pencil Design
http://the-internet-eye.com/blackpencil
pa...@the-internet-eye.com
New paper review is up!
http://the-internet-eye.com/blackpencil/paper.htm
Michael T. Richter
news:Gvh_3.1115$0Z.3...@weber.videotron.net...
> At what point do you grow up and start contributing to these groups again?
> I for one look forward to something a little more productive.
I look forward to your sterling leadership through example. I rather doubt
I'll see it, however.
Roger
Lo Veng Bun a écrit dans le message <81b2qa$kk0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <383820C7...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Lo Veng Bun wrote:
>>
>> > 5) adoption of children by same-sex couples is already a fact in
>> > Ontario and BC (and IIRC Quebec).
>>
>> Not on par with married/common-law couples.
>>
>> The courts do not allow normal, healthy children to be adopted by two
>> homosexuals unrelated to the child.
>
>You mean the same courts which have ordered over and over again
>equal treatment for straight and gay couples?
>
>Gay couples face 2 main hurdles when they try to adopt children.
>
>1. Joint adoption
>
>Adoption of children by individual applicants has been legal for
>a long time. In the case of individual applicants who are gay
>(whether or not they are single or in committed relationships),
>it has become routine in recent years.
>
>The problem a gay couple face is that they can only apply for
>adoption as individuals, but not jointly. When one of them adopts
>a child, only that person becomes the legal parent. The reason
>same-sex couples cannot apply to adopt jointly is that statutes
>governing adoption allow joint adoption by 2 applicants only if
>they are spouses of each other and the term "spouse" is defined
>heterosexually.
>
>This situation has now changed in BC and Ontario.
>
>In BC, the term "adult" has replaced "spouse"; section 29 of the
>BC Adoption Act now says:
>
>29 (1) One adult alone or 2 adults jointly may apply to the court
>to adopt a child in accordance with this Act. [i.e. the
>"unrelated" non-family adoption you refer to.]
>(2) One adult may apply to the court to jointly become a parent
>of a child with a birth parent of the child. [i.e. "stepparent"
>adoption.]
>(3) Each applicant must be a resident of British Columbia.
>
>If you read the relevant debates in the Hansard, you will find
>that same-sex couples are the intended beneficiaries of this
>amendment.
>
>In Ontario, the Court in the case _Re K_ in 1995 remedied the
>situation by "reading in" a definition of spouse that included
>both gay and straight couples. Not only did the incoming Harris
>government choose not to appeal the decision, it has abided by it
>ever since.
>
>Furthermore, Bill 5 has now added a new category of joint
>applicants named "other individuals" to the Ontario Child and
>Family Services Act. The context of this amendment (i.e. Bill 5)
>should make it clear who the intended beneficiaries are. In any
>event, when the Attorney General Jim Flaherty briefed the gay
>community at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in Toronto,
>he specifically reassured everyone that his government would
>continue to abide by _Re K_.
>
>2. "Best interests of the child"
>
>This "best interests" test governs both the decision of the
>relevant authorities (such as the Children's Aid Society) on
>where or with whom a child is placed for adoption and the
>decision of the court on whether to grant an order for adoption.
>
>The "best interest" test wasn't always kind to gay people. For
>instance, it was relied on by the courts in several cases to deny
>gay parents custody of or restrict their access to their children
>when they had separated from their opposite-sex partners. As
>recently as the 80s, some judges were still making homophobic
>comments in cases involving children.
>
>Fortunately, this is now the more enlightened 90s. Indeed, I
>would very surprised if you could find one case in the past 5
>years in which such homophobic attitude was evident.
>
>_Re K_ is the most well known and frequently cited case in the
>context of adoption by gay couples not only because of its legal
>findings, but also because of its factual findings based on
>extensive expert evidence. Let me quote from the judgment of the
>Court in _Re K_:
>
>> To say that the witnesses ... are "qualified" is a gross
>> understatement ... their credentials are nothing short of
>> staggering.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... I come to the following factual conclusions.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Progressively more rigorous empirical research in the area of
>> child development has produced the notion that the most important
>> element in the healthy development of a child is a stable,
>> consistent, warm and responsive relationship between a child and
>> his/her care-giver. Factors which appear to have a significant
>> effect on the healthy emotional and psychological development of
>> a child are more related to conflicts in spousal relations than
>> family type or structure. A parent's capacity to support and be
>> emotionally available to a child is enhanced in the context of a
>> supportive relationship, especially if there is good
>> communication, effective problem solving, and sharing of family
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... there is no good evidence to suggest that homosexual
>> individuals are less healthy psychologically and therefore less
>> able to be emotionally available to their children.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Despite stereotypical beliefs to the contrary, there is no
>> evidence to support the suggestion that most gay men and lesbians
>> have unstable or dysfunctional relationships. Couple
>> relationships are substantially similar, regardless of whether
>> the partners are of the opposite sex or the same sex, and it is
>> no longer possible to reason that homosexual relationships will
>> necessarily be less stable than a heterosexual union. Therefore,
>> children raised by gay or lesbian parents will not necessarily be
>> more frequently subjected to the loss of important relationships
>> than will children raised by heterosexual parents ....
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... I conclude that there is no reason to believe the sexual
>> orientation of the parents will be an indicator of the sexual
>> orientation of the children in their care. Nor is there any
>> evidence that the homosexual orientation of the parents ... will
>> produce any significantly greater incidence of psychiatric
>> disturbance, or emotional or behavioural problems, or
>> intellectual impairment than is seen in the population of
>> children raised by heterosexual parents.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> There is also no evidence at all that children raised by
>> homosexual parents will be exposed to any greater degree of
>> social stigma than children of heterosexual parents are exposed
>> to because of race or any number of other characteristics.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> There is, in short, no evidence that families with heterosexual
>> parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological,
>> emotional or intellectual needs of children than families with
>> homosexual parents.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> When one reflects on the seemingly limitless parade of neglected,
>> abandoned and abused children who appear before our courts in
>> protection cases daily, all of whom have been in the care of
>> heterosexual parents in a "traditional" family structure, the
>> suggestion that it might not ever be in the best interests of
>> these children to be raised by loving, caring and committed
>> parents, who might happen to be lesbian or gay, is nothing short
>> of ludicrous.
>
>BTW, opinions like yours were described by the Court in _Re K_ as
>"speculation, unfounded prejudice and fears ... the vociferous
>comments of an isolated and uninformed segment of the
>community." Do you still believe that "The courts do not allow
>normal, healthy children to be adopted by two homosexuals
>unrelated to the child"?
>
>With the exception of a few renegade judges, I am confident that
>the courts will no longer use the "best interests" test to
>discriminate against gay people.
>
>
>> So, relish all you want, but recognition of homosexuals as partners
>is, and
>> will always be, 2nd class status to married heterosexuals. As it
>should be.
>
>I guess your emphasis is on the word "married", presumably
>because you are conceding that in due course all unmarried
>couples, straight and gay, will be treated equally under the law.
>Do you realize there is also a parallel trend that all couples,
>married and unmarried, will eventually be treated equally under
>the law?
>
>I doubt you have heard of the Supreme Court Charter case _Miron v
>Trudel_ in your "uninformed segment of the community". As a
>result of this SCC precedent, Alberta has already amended several
>of its statutes which discriminated against unmarried couples.
>Short of invoking the notwithstanding clause, any new rights
>granted to unmarried straight couples will sooner or later have
>to be extended to same-sex couples. In other words, the 1st class
>status of married couples will be just that, a status; it will
>confer no special rights which are not already enjoyed by
>unmarried couples.
>
>In any case, the legalization of same-sex marriage is a question
>of when, not whether. Half a century ago, many people in the
>American south supported the criminalization of inter-racial
>marriage. Today, if people there are asked whether inter-racial
>couples should be allowed to marry, most will answer "Of course!"
>I don't know if it will take 10, 20 or 50 years, but one day,
>most people in Canada will say "Of course!" to same-sex marriage.
>
>
>--
>Veng Bun
Honest John
>With the exception of a few renegade judges, I am confident that
>the courts will no longer use the "best interests" test to
>discriminate against gay people.
So the best interest of the child will count for nothing when matched
up against the powerful homosexual lobby. No wonder that our society
is going down the tubes.
Patrick Coghlan
This is the way liberal minds work. Fairness is what is fair to *them*.
You do not count.
Patrick Coghlan
> In article <383820C7...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Lo Veng Bun wrote:
> >
> > > 5) adoption of children by same-sex couples is already a fact in
> > > Ontario and BC (and IIRC Quebec).
> >
> > Not on par with married/common-law couples.
> >
> > The courts do not allow normal, healthy children to be adopted by two
> > homosexuals unrelated to the child.
>
> You mean the same courts which have ordered over and over again
> equal treatment for straight and gay couples?
Yup, dem's de ones.
At some point they will rule that the rights of children to grow up in a
normal environment supercede the rights of gays to try their hand at
parenthood w.r.t. 3rd party adoptions.
> Gay couples face 2 main hurdles when they try to adopt children.
>
> 1. Joint adoption
>
> Adoption of children by individual applicants has been legal for
> a long time. In the case of individual applicants who are gay
> (whether or not they are single or in committed relationships),
> it has become routine in recent years.
What you call "routine" is anything but, unless you think that a single
male can walk in and adopt a healthy infant boy or girl on par with a
heterosexual couple. Let's be honest about what we're comparing here.
Of course, this obstacle is also faced by single heterosexuals - which is
fine. A child should have two parents, wherever possible.
> The problem a gay couple face is that they can only apply for
> adoption as individuals, but not jointly. When one of them adopts
> a child, only that person becomes the legal parent. The reason
> same-sex couples cannot apply to adopt jointly is that statutes
> governing adoption allow joint adoption by 2 applicants only if
> they are spouses of each other and the term "spouse" is defined
> heterosexually.
>
> This situation has now changed in BC and Ontario.
>
> In BC, the term "adult" has replaced "spouse"; section 29 of the
> BC Adoption Act now says:
>
> 29 (1) One adult alone or 2 adults jointly may apply to the court
> to adopt a child in accordance with this Act. [i.e. the
> "unrelated" non-family adoption you refer to.]
> (2) One adult may apply to the court to jointly become a parent
> of a child with a birth parent of the child. [i.e. "stepparent"
> adoption.]
> (3) Each applicant must be a resident of British Columbia.
Even if they let them "apply", can you cite a single case of a homosexual
couple being allowed to adopt a healthy, normal child when a heterosexual
couple was available?
Again, let's be honest here.
> 2. "Best interests of the child"
>
> >
> > ... I come to the following factual conclusions.
> >
> > Progressively more rigorous empirical research in the area of
> > child development has produced the notion that the most important
> > element in the healthy development of a child is a stable,
> > consistent, warm and responsive relationship between a child and
> > his/her care-giver. Factors which appear to have a significant
> > effect on the healthy emotional and psychological development of
> > a child are more related to conflicts in spousal relations than
> > family type or structure. A parent's capacity to support and be
> > emotionally available to a child is enhanced in the context of a
> > supportive relationship, especially if there is good
> > communication, effective problem solving, and sharing of family
> > responsibilities.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > ... there is no good evidence to suggest that homosexual
> > individuals are less healthy psychologically and therefore less
> > able to be emotionally available to their children.
This says nothing about the problems such children would face with their
peers throughout childhood, adolescence and finally into adulthood.
I don't care how well-adjusted a child is, it is simply not a fair burden
to place on him or her. They will be affected for life, and society will
not agree to treat homosexuals on par with heterosexuals in this regard.
If it were ever to happen, society would demand that laws - even the
charter of rights - be changed.
> > ... I conclude that there is no reason to believe the sexual
> > orientation of the parents will be an indicator of the sexual
> > orientation of the children in their care. Nor is there any
Perhaps not the sexual orientation, but their mental health will be
affected.
> > evidence that the homosexual orientation of the parents ... will
> > produce any significantly greater incidence of psychiatric
> > disturbance, or emotional or behavioural problems, or
> > intellectual impairment than is seen in the population of
> > children raised by heterosexual parents.
And who should we "experiment" with to check the validity of that claim?
> > There is also no evidence at all that children raised by
> > homosexual parents will be exposed to any greater degree of
> > social stigma than children of heterosexual parents are exposed
> > to because of race or any number of other characteristics.
That is pure nonsense. Teenagers are *extremely* sensitive about fitting
in, constantly afraid of being humiliated by anything their parents might
say or do in front of their friends.
> > There is, in short, no evidence that families with heterosexual
> > parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological,
> > emotional or intellectual needs of children than families with
> > homosexual parents.
If the homosexual parents were perfect parents, and the child was perfectly
adjusted and in a perfect environment at schools, the *experiment* might
succeed. In the real world, the kid would be forced to try and hide the
fact that he/she had homosexual parents.
>
> > When one reflects on the seemingly limitless parade of neglected,
> > abandoned and abused children who appear before our courts in
> > protection cases daily, all of whom have been in the care of
> > heterosexual parents in a "traditional" family structure, the
> > suggestion that it might not ever be in the best interests of
> > these children to be raised by loving, caring and committed
> > parents, who might happen to be lesbian or gay, is nothing short
> > of ludicrous.
>
> BTW, opinions like yours were described by the Court in _Re K_ as
> "speculation, unfounded prejudice and fears ... the vociferous
> comments of an isolated and uninformed segment of the
> community." Do you still believe that "The courts do not allow
> normal, healthy children to be adopted by two homosexuals
> unrelated to the child"?
When a suitable heterosexual couple is available - yes.
> With the exception of a few renegade judges, I am confident that
> the courts will no longer use the "best interests" test to
> discriminate against gay people.
What a travesty that would be, if we were to start ignoring the best
interests of the children in favour of the interests of the homosexual
applicants.
> > So, relish all you want, but recognition of homosexuals as partners
> is, and
> > will always be, 2nd class status to married heterosexuals. As it
> should be.
>
> I guess your emphasis is on the word "married", presumably
> because you are conceding that in due course all unmarried
> couples, straight and gay, will be treated equally under the law.
No, I don't believe that society will ever allow it to happen.
> Do you realize there is also a parallel trend that all couples,
> married and unmarried, will eventually be treated equally under
> the law?
All heterosexual couples, perhaps. But there will be conditions (length of
cohabitation etc.) similar to what exist today for all marriage rights and
benefits to accrue. For example, all rights and benefits accrue on day 1
following a marriage. They will not accrue to people who have lived
together for one day, obviously.
> I doubt you have heard of the Supreme Court Charter case _Miron v
> Trudel_ in your "uninformed segment of the community". As a
> result of this SCC precedent, Alberta has already amended several
> of its statutes which discriminated against unmarried couples.
> Short of invoking the notwithstanding clause, any new rights
> granted to unmarried straight couples will sooner or later have
> to be extended to same-sex couples. In other words, the 1st class
On this we disagree.
> status of married couples will be just that, a status; it will
> confer no special rights which are not already enjoyed by
> unmarried couples.
Not true. I've already explained that conditions will apply. In the case
of a marriage the condition is a recognized marriage licence. In the case
of common-law there will be conditions on the minimum length of
cohabitation.
> In any case, the legalization of same-sex marriage is a question
> of when, not whether. Half a century ago, many people in the
> American south supported the criminalization of inter-racial
> marriage. Today, if people there are asked whether inter-racial
> couples should be allowed to marry, most will answer "Of course!"
> I don't know if it will take 10, 20 or 50 years, but one day,
> most people in Canada will say "Of course!" to same-sex marriage.
Well, it hasn't happened anywhere in the world yet. But the reality -
which you will never change through legislation - is that heterosexuals
want homosexuals to blend into the background where they can be ignored.
They will never be accepted by the majority of heterosexuals because their
sexual behaviour is repulsive to most.
It's not politically correct to state it, but that's the way things are and
will always remain.
Kevin Rockel
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Lo Veng Bun wrote:
>
<snip>
> > > ... there is no good evidence to suggest that homosexual
> > > individuals are less healthy psychologically and therefore less
> > > able to be emotionally available to their children.
>
> This says nothing about the problems such children would face with their
> peers throughout childhood, adolescence and finally into adulthood.
I see, so the only reason for denying homosexuals the ability to
adopt children is that other people are homophobic?
That is like saying the black people should not be allowed to mix with
white people
because white people are racist.
Congratulations, you are arguing to enforce homophobia for the sake of
homophobia.
>
> I don't care how well-adjusted a child is, it is simply not a fair burden
> to place on him or her. They will be affected for life, and society will
> not agree to treat homosexuals on par with heterosexuals in this regard.
And the only way for society to treat them as equals IS TO TREAT THEM AS
EQUALS.
All you are doing by "protecting" these children is reinforcing the idea
that homosexuality is bad, when the real problem is that people are
afraid
of homosexuality.
The fault is with society, not the homosexuals.
>
> If it were ever to happen, society would demand that laws - even the
> charter of rights - be changed.
No, because just like in the days of the black civil rights movement,
people
will realize that it is society that is needlessly punishing people for
being
what they are, rather than for doing something wrong.
Tolerance is for society to learn. Being intolerant will not help this
process.
>
> > > ... I conclude that there is no reason to believe the sexual
> > > orientation of the parents will be an indicator of the sexual
> > > orientation of the children in their care. Nor is there any
>
> Perhaps not the sexual orientation, but their mental health will be
> affected.
The fact that homosexuals are their parents will not.
The fact that people are afraid of homosexuals will.
We should be fixing the problem, not adding to it.
>
> > > evidence that the homosexual orientation of the parents ... will
> > > produce any significantly greater incidence of psychiatric
> > > disturbance, or emotional or behavioural problems, or
> > > intellectual impairment than is seen in the population of
> > > children raised by heterosexual parents.
>
> And who should we "experiment" with to check the validity of that claim?
How about the children of homosexuals? They already exist, and (from my
somewhat limited
exposure) show no ill effects.
The experiment has already been going on for years.
>
> > > There is also no evidence at all that children raised by
> > > homosexual parents will be exposed to any greater degree of
> > > social stigma than children of heterosexual parents are exposed
> > > to because of race or any number of other characteristics.
>
> That is pure nonsense. Teenagers are *extremely* sensitive about fitting
> in, constantly afraid of being humiliated by anything their parents might
> say or do in front of their friends.
So?
That happens when there is ANYTHING different about your parents, from
being of
different color, having a "bad" job, having an accent, etc., etc.
The only way it is gotten over is by people realizing that the
difference is not
worth teasing over. Just like having two moms or two dads at the same
time is not
worth teasing over.
>
> > > There is, in short, no evidence that families with heterosexual
> > > parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological,
> > > emotional or intellectual needs of children than families with
> > > homosexual parents.
>
> If the homosexual parents were perfect parents, and the child was perfectly
> adjusted and in a perfect environment at schools, the *experiment* might
> succeed. In the real world, the kid would be forced to try and hide the
> fact that he/she had homosexual parents.
The experiment is ONGOING, and the kids are no more forced to hide their
parent
than any other child who has something a little unusual at home (like
they are Jewish,
or are not married or whatever).
<snip>
>
> > With the exception of a few renegade judges, I am confident that
> > the courts will no longer use the "best interests" test to
> > discriminate against gay people.
>
> What a travesty that would be, if we were to start ignoring the best
> interests of the children in favour of the interests of the homosexual
> applicants.
What is the travesty?
The child should go to the most suitable parents. Thus if the most
suitable parents are
hetero-sexual, then the child should go to them. If the most suitable
are homosexual
then the child should go to them
The sexual preference of the children should not be a determining factor
in their suitability.
<snip>
>
> > In any case, the legalization of same-sex marriage is a question
> > of when, not whether. Half a century ago, many people in the
> > American south supported the criminalization of inter-racial
> > marriage. Today, if people there are asked whether inter-racial
> > couples should be allowed to marry, most will answer "Of course!"
> > I don't know if it will take 10, 20 or 50 years, but one day,
> > most people in Canada will say "Of course!" to same-sex marriage.
>
> Well, it hasn't happened anywhere in the world yet.
The operative word is YET.
But the reality -
> which you will never change through legislation - is that heterosexuals
> want homosexuals to blend into the background where they can be ignored.
> They will never be accepted by the majority of heterosexuals because their
> sexual behaviour is repulsive to most.
This is of course untrue.
What percentage of porno films do not contain a lesbian scene? 90%?
More?
Sounds like it is rather popular (at least to see) for something so
repulsive.
People might not want to participate (but then again, who is asking them
to participate)
but people are not necessarily repulsed by it.
>
> It's not politically correct to state it, but that's the way things are and
> will always remain.
Funny, people said the same thing in defense of segregation in the 60's
Kevin
Marc Katt Lombart
>So the best interest of the child will count for nothing when matched
>up against the powerful homosexual lobby. No wonder that our society
>is going down the tubes.
>
If by, "Going down the tubes." you mean that our society is chaning from
the bigotted bullshit of people like you, to a more enlighted society, then
yes that is what is happening.
Marc
Marc Katt Lombart
>This is the way liberal minds work. Fairness is what is fair to *them*.
>You do not count.
>
Look who is talking?
Marc
Rickkins
monogamy etc. However , children are , or should be, everyones
business. Under most conditions gays should not expect to be
granted the privilege of adopting children.
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:36:10 GMT, Lo Veng Bun <b...@fan.com> wrote:
>In article <383820C7...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Lo Veng Bun wrote:
>>
>> > 5) adoption of children by same-sex couples is already a fact in
>> > Ontario and BC (and IIRC Quebec).
>>
>> Not on par with married/common-law couples.
>>
>> The courts do not allow normal, healthy children to be adopted by two
>> homosexuals unrelated to the child.
>
>You mean the same courts which have ordered over and over again
>equal treatment for straight and gay couples?
>
>Gay couples face 2 main hurdles when they try to adopt children.
>
>1. Joint adoption
>
>Adoption of children by individual applicants has been legal for
>a long time. In the case of individual applicants who are gay
>(whether or not they are single or in committed relationships),
>it has become routine in recent years.
>
>The problem a gay couple face is that they can only apply for
>adoption as individuals, but not jointly. When one of them adopts
>a child, only that person becomes the legal parent. The reason
>same-sex couples cannot apply to adopt jointly is that statutes
>governing adoption allow joint adoption by 2 applicants only if
>they are spouses of each other and the term "spouse" is defined
>heterosexually.
>
>This situation has now changed in BC and Ontario.
>
>In BC, the term "adult" has replaced "spouse"; section 29 of the
>BC Adoption Act now says:
>
>29 (1) One adult alone or 2 adults jointly may apply to the court
>to adopt a child in accordance with this Act. [i.e. the
>"unrelated" non-family adoption you refer to.]
>(2) One adult may apply to the court to jointly become a parent
>of a child with a birth parent of the child. [i.e. "stepparent"
>adoption.]
>(3) Each applicant must be a resident of British Columbia.
>
>If you read the relevant debates in the Hansard, you will find
>that same-sex couples are the intended beneficiaries of this
>amendment.
>
>In Ontario, the Court in the case _Re K_ in 1995 remedied the
>situation by "reading in" a definition of spouse that included
>both gay and straight couples. Not only did the incoming Harris
>government choose not to appeal the decision, it has abided by it
>ever since.
>
>Furthermore, Bill 5 has now added a new category of joint
>applicants named "other individuals" to the Ontario Child and
>Family Services Act. The context of this amendment (i.e. Bill 5)
>should make it clear who the intended beneficiaries are. In any
>event, when the Attorney General Jim Flaherty briefed the gay
>community at the 519 Church Street Community Centre in Toronto,
>he specifically reassured everyone that his government would
>continue to abide by _Re K_.
>
>2. "Best interests of the child"
>
>This "best interests" test governs both the decision of the
>relevant authorities (such as the Children's Aid Society) on
>where or with whom a child is placed for adoption and the
>decision of the court on whether to grant an order for adoption.
>
>The "best interest" test wasn't always kind to gay people. For
>instance, it was relied on by the courts in several cases to deny
>gay parents custody of or restrict their access to their children
>when they had separated from their opposite-sex partners. As
>recently as the 80s, some judges were still making homophobic
>comments in cases involving children.
>
>Fortunately, this is now the more enlightened 90s. Indeed, I
>would very surprised if you could find one case in the past 5
>years in which such homophobic attitude was evident.
>
>_Re K_ is the most well known and frequently cited case in the
>context of adoption by gay couples not only because of its legal
>findings, but also because of its factual findings based on
>extensive expert evidence. Let me quote from the judgment of the
>Court in _Re K_:
>
>> To say that the witnesses ... are "qualified" is a gross
>> understatement ... their credentials are nothing short of
>> staggering.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... I come to the following factual conclusions.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Progressively more rigorous empirical research in the area of
>> child development has produced the notion that the most important
>> element in the healthy development of a child is a stable,
>> consistent, warm and responsive relationship between a child and
>> his/her care-giver. Factors which appear to have a significant
>> effect on the healthy emotional and psychological development of
>> a child are more related to conflicts in spousal relations than
>> family type or structure. A parent's capacity to support and be
>> emotionally available to a child is enhanced in the context of a
>> supportive relationship, especially if there is good
>> communication, effective problem solving, and sharing of family
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... there is no good evidence to suggest that homosexual
>> individuals are less healthy psychologically and therefore less
>> able to be emotionally available to their children.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Despite stereotypical beliefs to the contrary, there is no
>> evidence to support the suggestion that most gay men and lesbians
>> have unstable or dysfunctional relationships. Couple
>> relationships are substantially similar, regardless of whether
>> the partners are of the opposite sex or the same sex, and it is
>> no longer possible to reason that homosexual relationships will
>> necessarily be less stable than a heterosexual union. Therefore,
>> children raised by gay or lesbian parents will not necessarily be
>> more frequently subjected to the loss of important relationships
>> than will children raised by heterosexual parents ....
>>
>> ....
>>
>> ... I conclude that there is no reason to believe the sexual
>> orientation of the parents will be an indicator of the sexual
>> orientation of the children in their care. Nor is there any
>> evidence that the homosexual orientation of the parents ... will
>> produce any significantly greater incidence of psychiatric
>> disturbance, or emotional or behavioural problems, or
>> intellectual impairment than is seen in the population of
>> children raised by heterosexual parents.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> There is also no evidence at all that children raised by
>> homosexual parents will be exposed to any greater degree of
>> social stigma than children of heterosexual parents are exposed
>> to because of race or any number of other characteristics.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> There is, in short, no evidence that families with heterosexual
>> parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological,
>> emotional or intellectual needs of children than families with
>> homosexual parents.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> When one reflects on the seemingly limitless parade of neglected,
>> abandoned and abused children who appear before our courts in
>> protection cases daily, all of whom have been in the care of
>> heterosexual parents in a "traditional" family structure, the
>> suggestion that it might not ever be in the best interests of
>> these children to be raised by loving, caring and committed
>> parents, who might happen to be lesbian or gay, is nothing short
>> of ludicrous.
>
>BTW, opinions like yours were described by the Court in _Re K_ as
>"speculation, unfounded prejudice and fears ... the vociferous
>comments of an isolated and uninformed segment of the
>community." Do you still believe that "The courts do not allow
>normal, healthy children to be adopted by two homosexuals
>unrelated to the child"?
>
>With the exception of a few renegade judges, I am confident that
>the courts will no longer use the "best interests" test to
>discriminate against gay people.
>
>
>> So, relish all you want, but recognition of homosexuals as partners
>is, and
>> will always be, 2nd class status to married heterosexuals. As it
>should be.
>
>I guess your emphasis is on the word "married", presumably
>because you are conceding that in due course all unmarried
>couples, straight and gay, will be treated equally under the law.
>Do you realize there is also a parallel trend that all couples,
>married and unmarried, will eventually be treated equally under
>the law?
>
>I doubt you have heard of the Supreme Court Charter case _Miron v
>Trudel_ in your "uninformed segment of the community". As a
>result of this SCC precedent, Alberta has already amended several
>of its statutes which discriminated against unmarried couples.
>Short of invoking the notwithstanding clause, any new rights
>granted to unmarried straight couples will sooner or later have
>to be extended to same-sex couples. In other words, the 1st class
>status of married couples will be just that, a status; it will
>confer no special rights which are not already enjoyed by
>unmarried couples.
>
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:SC55:EXCH]
>
> What gays decide to do is their business, whether it be marriage,
> monogamy etc. However , children are , or should be, everyones
> business. Under most conditions gays should not expect to be
> granted the privilege of adopting children.
Why not?
Is it because some people are uncomfortable with Gays? Some
people are uncomfortable with Jews and Blacks, shall we deny them
the privilege of adopting children.
Yes, gays are not "normal". They are still capable of caring and
nuturing children
like straight couples. Why should other peoples bigotry prevent them
from
taking care of children?
Kevin
Michael T. Richter
news:383A0B17...@magma.ca...
> At some point they will rule that the rights of children to grow
> up in a normal environment supercede the rights of gays to try
> their hand at parenthood w.r.t. 3rd party adoptions.
There was a time when mixed marriages weren't a "normal environment". If
you were alive in the '40s-50s, would you be opposing mixed marriages "for
the sake of the children"?
> It's not politically correct to state it, but that's the way things
> are and will always remain.
Nice crystal ball you have.
Steven C. Britton
>
> Yes, gays are not "normal". They are still capable of caring and
> nuturing children like straight couples. Why should other peoples bigotry
> prevent them from taking care of children?
Why is an opposing opinion always "bigotry"?
It's quite simple.
Take a homosexual couple, and a married heterosexual couple. Both are equal
in parenting ability. The married heterosexual couple will still be a
better environment for a child to be brought up in.
Why?
That's also simple: a married, heterosexual couple is (a) inherently more
stable than any other couple,
(b) children need the role-modeling of two different genders, not just one.
Men and women think and act differently, and in order for a child to grow up
into a fully-functional adult, they need that role-modelling; and (c)
children brought up outside of heterosexual, married parental environments
are twice as more likely to end up in jail, far more likely to do poorly in
school, and are far more likely to have social development problems.
I'm not saying adoption by homosexual couples should be banned, but I _am_
saying that married heterosexual couples should take precedence over
everybody else on the waiting list.
(putting asbestos suit on, and expecting howls of "bigot" coming in my
direction...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work better: Work union-free.
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
Michael T. Richter
news:383ab...@news.cadvision.com...
> That's also simple: a married, heterosexual couple is (a) inherently more
> stable than any other couple,
50% divorce rate says otherwise. Or can you show me statistics on
homosexual family units separating?
> (b) children need the role-modeling of two different genders, not just
one.
> Men and women think and act differently, and in order for a child to grow
up
> into a fully-functional adult, they need that role-modelling;
Thus single mothers or fathers should have their children taken away from
them. Indeed a home with a single parent is worse, by your criteria, than
is a homosexual family home. At least the homosexual family home has two
parents and gets better coverage in caring for the child, "unbalanced" as it
may be.
> and (c)
> children brought up outside of heterosexual, married parental environments
> are twice as more likely to end up in jail, far more likely to do poorly
in
> school, and are far more likely to have social development problems.
Cite the sources for these numbers please? They sound too round to be true.
They sound made up.
Bad Daddy
>In article <383A0B17...@magma.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Lo Veng Bun wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > In BC, the term "adult" has replaced "spouse"; section 29 of the
>> > BC Adoption Act now says:
>> >
>> > 29 (1) One adult alone or 2 adults jointly may apply to the court
>> > to adopt a child in accordance with this Act. [i.e. the
>> > "unrelated" non-family adoption you refer to.]
>> > (2) One adult may apply to the court to jointly become a parent
>> > of a child with a birth parent of the child. [i.e. "stepparent"
>> > adoption.]
>> > (3) Each applicant must be a resident of British Columbia.
>>
>> Even if they let them "apply", can you cite a single case of a
>homosexual
>> couple being allowed to adopt a healthy, normal child when a
>heterosexual
>> couple was available?
>
>According to you, straight couples are superior parents and yet
>you have repeatedly described the children they adopt as
>"healthy, normal". So the supposedly better straight couples
>adopt the supposedly 1st class healthy, normal children and the
>supposedly inferior gay couples adopt the supposedly 2nd class
>children with special needs who, presumably, have been rejected
>by straight couples. How I am not surprised that selfish people
>make better parents in your universe!
Nature has a perfect plan for humans: one mommy and one daddy. It has
been applied for billions of years and will continue to work for ever
until humans are gone.
>
>As for your question, the answer is not yet because court files
>and other records in adoption cases are confidential. In order to
>cite a verifiable case, the people involved have to be willing to
>go public or the case involves a contentious point of law for
>which written reasons have been issued by the court (the parties
>remain anonymous of course). Neither has happened yet; after all,
>the BC Adoption Act is only 3 years old. When a verifiable case
>is available, I'll bring you the news.
>
>> > In any case, the legalization of same-sex marriage is a question
>> > of when, not whether. Half a century ago, many people in the
>> > American south supported the criminalization of inter-racial
>> > marriage. Today, if people there are asked whether inter-racial
>> > couples should be allowed to marry, most will answer "Of course!"
>> > I don't know if it will take 10, 20 or 50 years, but one day,
>> > most people in Canada will say "Of course!" to same-sex marriage.
>>
>> Well, it hasn't happened anywhere in the world yet.
>
>The Dutch cabinet has already approved the legalization of
>same-sex marriage (I mean marriage, not registered domestic
>partnership) and the relevant legislation is expected to be
>enacted by the end of 2000 or early 2001.
>
>The Vermont Supreme Court will release its decision in _Baker v
>Vermont_ any day now.
Michael T. Richter
news:383ac6f1...@news.vic.sfl.net...
> Nature has a perfect plan for humans: one mommy and one daddy.
Nature has no plans of any kind whatsoever. Personfication of nature is
stupid.
> It has been applied for billions of years [...]
... even though humans haven't been around for billions of years (did the
first eukaryotes and prokaryotes have one mommy and one daddy each,
perhaps?) ...
> and will continue to work for ever until humans are gone.
Which is it? Forever or until humans are gone?
grumblefish
> been applied for billions of years and will continue to work for ever
> until humans are gone.
have there BEEN humans for billiong of years? You may also wish to keep in
mind the fact that that's natures 'perfect', messy, painful, and sometimes
fatal way to MAKE babies, and says absolutely nothing about the history of
child care. I can see by your post that you're obviously well educated in
that area, so perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, since that's what we're
talking about. I believe everyone here already knew how the Birds and Bees
bit worked.
Steven C. Britton
> > That's also simple: a married, heterosexual couple is (a) inherently
more
> > stable than any other couple,
>
> 50% divorce rate says otherwise. Or can you show me statistics on
> homosexual family units separating?
Statistics. Everyone wants statistics.
First of all, children of divorce are damaged severely. I did have a
bookmark at one time for a web site which provided data; but unfortunately I
deleted it last time I cleaned out my hard drive. This basically adds
weight to the argument that people should not get divorced once they're
married.
Secondly, the 50% divorce rate fails to take into account second; third;
fourth and so on marriages. The divorce rate for first-time marriages
(where most children come from) is much lower than 50%.
The break-up rate for homosexual couplings is far higher than the "divorce"
rate; though.
> > (b) children need the role-modeling of two different genders, not just
> > one. Men and women think and act differently, and in order for a child
to grow
> > up into a fully-functional adult, they need that role-modelling;
>
> Thus single mothers or fathers should have their children taken away from
> them.
I didn't say that. I said that people shouldn't get divorced. I have also
said in the past that single adults shouldn't get priority over married
heterosexual couples for adoption. When a divorce does occur (far too
often), the parents should do whatever they can to make the best of a
terrible situation.
> Indeed a home with a single parent is worse, by your criteria, than
> is a homosexual family home.
I haven't said that either.
> At least the homosexual family home has two parents and gets better
coverage in caring for the child,
> "unbalanced" as it may be.
Not relevent. The best possible circumstances for a child to be brought up
in is with two married heterosexual parents. We're talking solely about
adoption.
> > and (c)
> > children brought up outside of heterosexual, married parental
environments
> > are twice as more likely to end up in jail, far more likely to do poorly
> in
> > school, and are far more likely to have social development problems.
>
> Cite the sources for these numbers please? They sound too round to be
true.
> They sound made up.
Go to a jail. Find out how many of the inmates came from stable, married,
heterosexal families. Far less than 10%, I'd wager.
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:SC55:EXCH]
> >According to you, straight couples are superior parents and yet
> >you have repeatedly described the children they adopt as
> >"healthy, normal". So the supposedly better straight couples
> >adopt the supposedly 1st class healthy, normal children and the
> >supposedly inferior gay couples adopt the supposedly 2nd class
> >children with special needs who, presumably, have been rejected
> >by straight couples. How I am not surprised that selfish people
> >make better parents in your universe!
>
> Nature has a perfect plan for humans: one mommy and one daddy. It has
> been applied for billions of years and will continue to work for ever
> until humans are gone.
???????
Which planet were you brought up on?
Nature has no requirement for there to be a mommy and daddy for children
except at the moment of conception. Historically, there have been many
models for raising families, from two parents, to one parent, to
communal,
to no parents to whatever.
There is nothing perfect about it.
Also, I might add that humans have not been around for billions of
years.
Kevin
Bad Daddy
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
Ok, so you are a literalist.
>Bad Daddy <dont...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:383ac6f1...@news.vic.sfl.net...
>> Nature has a perfect plan for humans: one mommy and one daddy.
>
>Nature has no plans of any kind whatsoever. Personfication of nature is
>stupid.
It is a human trait. What are you?
Of course nature has a plan. It is simply procreation. End of story.
>
>> It has been applied for billions of years [...]
>
>... even though humans haven't been around for billions of years (did the
>first eukaryotes and prokaryotes have one mommy and one daddy each,
>perhaps?) ...
Again with the literalism. Try thinking a bit outside the human
parameters. Nature is nature.
>
>> and will continue to work for ever until humans are gone.
>
>Which is it? Forever or until humans are gone?
Right. Humans will not exist at some time in the future. For whatever
reason. I am betting on an asteroid.
Steven C. Britton
>
> Checked the divorce rate lately? While slowing down, it is still
> unconscionable high.
Yes. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Does not reflect on stability;
because break-up rates for homosexual relationships are far higher. 50%
diforce rate also means that 50% of _all_ marriages end in divorce. It does
not take into account the "number" of the marraige -- first, second, third,
etc. The divorce rate for higher-order marriages is much -- and I mean
MUCH -- higher than first-time marriages.
And most children come from first-time marriages.
> AFAIK, there is no evidence that gay couples are any less stable than
> breeders.
Thought processes. Women and men think differently, and those differences
complement each other. Men Mars, women Venus and all that.
Steven C. Britton
>
> Really. I'm intrigued as the the logic/rational behind these
> statements. If you're not able to provide some evidence, then yes, i
> would say it is bigotry, If you can provide some evidence of these
> circumstances, then you'll have a vaild argument.
My experience in these matters is that even when I have provided the
statistics, people discount them as useless anyway.
Bad Daddy
<grumb...@bombshelter.ca> wrote:
>Bad Daddy <dont...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:383ac6f1...@news.vic.sfl.net...
>> Nature has a perfect plan for humans: one mommy and one daddy. It has
>> been applied for billions of years and will continue to work for ever
>> until humans are gone.
>
>have there BEEN humans for billiong of years? You may also wish to keep in
>mind the fact that that's natures 'perfect', messy, painful, and sometimes
>fatal way to MAKE babies, and says absolutely nothing about the history of
>child care. I can see by your post that you're obviously well educated in
>that area, so perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, since that's what we're
>talking about. I believe everyone here already knew how the Birds and Bees
>bit worked.
>
Pulhease, think about the general idea, not specifically to humans.
Mommy and daddy refers to a male and female. What ever creature you
choose (non-asexual reproduction is not germane to this thread.)
And you just so mean. I can only assume that you believe that any two
'things', be they human or otherwise have the right (forget about
responsibilities) to raise a human.
My post is about how nature designed humans specifically and sexual
reproducing flora and fauna in general. A mommy and daddy. A simple
and perfect method.
Now of course we can have two daddies. Amazing how nature can be
altered.
And if you are going to jump up on a PC/racist/sexist/Iamajerkoff soap
box, don't bother. It is crowded already with ninnies like you.
>
Bad Daddy
<sbri...@cadvision.com> wrote:
>Rockel, Kevin wrote:
>>
>> Yes, gays are not "normal". They are still capable of caring and
>> nuturing children like straight couples. Why should other peoples bigotry
>> prevent them from taking care of children?
>
>Why is an opposing opinion always "bigotry"?
>
>It's quite simple.
>
>Take a homosexual couple, and a married heterosexual couple. Both are equal
>in parenting ability. The married heterosexual couple will still be a
>better environment for a child to be brought up in.
>
>Why?
>
>That's also simple: a married, heterosexual couple is (a) inherently more
>stable than any other couple,
>(b) children need the role-modeling of two different genders, not just one.
>Men and women think and act differently, and in order for a child to grow up
>into a fully-functional adult, they need that role-modelling; and (c)
>children brought up outside of heterosexual, married parental environments
>are twice as more likely to end up in jail, far more likely to do poorly in
>school, and are far more likely to have social development problems.
>
>I'm not saying adoption by homosexual couples should be banned, but I _am_
>saying that married heterosexual couples should take precedence over
>everybody else on the waiting list.
>
>(putting asbestos suit on, and expecting howls of "bigot" coming in my
>direction...)
Oh no, not a bigot. You will be branded worse for stating the obvious.
How about a Human Rights Tribunal!! Now you should be afraid.
Rockel, Kevin [CAR:SC55:EXCH]
>
> Rockel, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > Yes, gays are not "normal". They are still capable of caring and
> > nuturing children like straight couples. Why should other peoples bigotry
> > prevent them from taking care of children?
>
> Why is an opposing opinion always "bigotry"?
It is only bigotry when the opinion is based upon denegrating people for
no other
reason than the person with the opinion does not like the person(s)
being denegrated.
>
> It's quite simple.
>
> Take a homosexual couple, and a married heterosexual couple. Both are equal
> in parenting ability. The married heterosexual couple will still be a
> better environment for a child to be brought up in.
>
> Why?
>
> That's also simple: a married, heterosexual couple is (a) inherently more
> stable than any other couple,
Evidence? Hetero couples have a ridiculously high divorce rate.
> (b) children need the role-modeling of two different genders, not just one.
> Men and women think and act differently, and in order for a child to grow up
> into a fully-functional adult, they need that role-modelling;
Evidence? Relevance? There are many ways to have role models besides
parents.
There are: other relatives, friends and neighbours, teachers, religious
figures,
TV, etc. etc. etc.
and (c)
> children brought up outside of heterosexual, married parental environments
> are twice as more likely to end up in jail, far more likely to do poorly in
> school, and are far more likely to have social development problems.
And where is the data to back this up?
Comparing a stable hetero marriages to unstable hetero, unstable homo,
or no
parent families is not a valid comparison to stable homosexual
marriages.
Unstable family situations are definately not desirable. This is
indepentdant of
sexual preference. There is no reason to assume that a homosexual
relationship
is necessarily going to be unstable (or at least no more reason than any
comperable
hetero relationship.
>
> I'm not saying adoption by homosexual couples should be banned, but I _am_
> saying that married heterosexual couples should take precedence over
> everybody else on the waiting list.
Why not just have the best couple take precedence, and leave sexuality
out of it?
Kevin