ImageImageImageImageImage

The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

Moderators: j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36

ewingxmanstarks
Banned User
Posts: 1,585
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1381 » by ewingxmanstarks » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:40 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:
ewingxmanstarks wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:By the by, Jon Stewart just administered a serious beatdown response in his ongoing and very entertaining tet-a-tet with Chris Wallace.

I think the replay is on at 2 a.m. EST and tomorrow at 8 p.m. EST.


beatdown to who?


Wallace. Stewart's reply to Wallace's response. And, I have to say, I was pretty impressed. I thought Wallace might have had Stewart on the ropes. Nope a dope. lol.


If your talking about the first debate, you can see it on youtube :lol:

If your talking about him talking about the interview, and then calling that a beatdown :lol:
ewingxmanstarks
Banned User
Posts: 1,585
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1382 » by ewingxmanstarks » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:47 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:
ewingxmanstarks wrote:
Pharmcat wrote:how is it hindering when they are off to the side on their own personal property?

if they are in the middle between them and the person in question, then yea its hindering....but being of to the side isnt


Your not seeing it from the police point of view,,,

Many times when the police are recorded...whats on tape doesn't show the whole story...Maybe the bystander selectively records things to paint a picture..

To the same point..with Technology now a days, one can edit what they record to incriminate the officers..

There job is hard enough...I don't think it should be illegal to record the police, but if they see you recording them, while doing police work, don't you think the right thing to do is stop recording?

Edit: When asked by the police



[b]Oh, I know the "police point of view." And that view is "don't film me while I"m beating the daylights out of this black (or hispanic) guy[/b]."



thats really dumb....even for you
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1383 » by HarthorneWingo » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:52 am

Grover Norquist is on Colbert right now.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1384 » by rsavaj » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:44 pm

HawthorneWingo wrote:Chicago's Police Superintendent, and former NYC cop (born in the Bronx), speaks out on gun violence. I'm not a religious person, but I stand with him. Do you?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIX4j2sormY&feature=player_embedded#at=13[/youtube]


I'm all for gun control but I have no idea what the face I just watched. It was like something out of Hollywood.
User avatar
Capn'O
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 90,736
And1: 110,912
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Bone Goal
 

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1385 » by Capn'O » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:00 pm

ewingxmanstarks wrote:I'm just saying unexpected consequences....the only tested model is the traditional family.

The far more children who need parents is because of unwanted pregnancies, which is a separate issue all in it self, that needs to be dealt with....to say is homosexual addoption would be a good practical solution not only is an assumption, but takes away fron personal responsibility, which is the core of the problem.


Had to go back to this. The nuclear family is not a historically common model. It's really a product of the 20th century with the apartment/subdivision model of living. More commonly, larger extended families would live together and going back even further or to less developed areas an entire tribe would raise the family together. The height of the secluded, nuclear, subdivisioned family corresponded with the 50's-70's with American cities collapsing, illegal and perscription drug epidemics, and the development of many of the social ills many conservatives rail on and on about.

Now obviously I am not suggesting a causal relationship here... but the points are that A) the nuclear family is far and away not the only tested model nor does it necessarily provide "everything a child needs" and B) the more positive influences that are in a child's life, the better off it will be. Having watched my brother and sister in-laws go through the adoption process it made me wish that all parents would have that kind of intensive personal screening before being allowed to procreate. It's really tough to adopt, whereas if any old Joe and Jane off the street want to bring a child into this world (or don't want to but do anyway) alls they gots to do is have at it a lil' with no rubbers on. Really, if a gay couple can get through the adoption screening process and show they have a plan for raising a child well I can say with absolute certainty that the child is getting a better upbringing than it would have otherwise.
BAF Clippers:
UNDER CONSTRUCTION - PLEASE INQUIRE WITHIN

:beer:
ewingxmanstarks
Banned User
Posts: 1,585
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1386 » by ewingxmanstarks » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:35 pm

Capn'O wrote:
ewingxmanstarks wrote:I'm just saying unexpected consequences....the only tested model is the traditional family.

The far more children who need parents is because of unwanted pregnancies, which is a separate issue all in it self, that needs to be dealt with....to say is homosexual addoption would be a good practical solution not only is an assumption, but takes away fron personal responsibility, which is the core of the problem.


Had to go back to this. The nuclear family is not a historically common model. It's really a product of the 20th century with the apartment/subdivision model of living. More commonly, larger extended families would live together and going back even further or to less developed areas an entire tribe would raise the family together. The height of the secluded, nuclear, subdivisioned family corresponded with the 50's-70's with American cities collapsing, illegal and perscription drug epidemics, and the development of many of the social ills many conservatives rail on and on about.

Now obviously I am not suggesting a causal relationship here... but the points are that A) the nuclear family is far and away not the only tested model nor does it necessarily provide "everything a child needs" and B) the more positive influences that are in a child's life, the better off it will be. Having watched my brother and sister in-laws go through the adoption process it made me wish that all parents would have that kind of intensive personal screening before being allowed to procreate. It's really tough to adopt, whereas if any old Joe and Jane off the street want to bring a child into this world (or don't want to but do anyway) alls they gots to do is have at it a lil' with no rubbers on. Really, if a gay couple can get through the adoption screening process and show they have a plan for raising a child well I can say with absolute certainty that the child is getting a better upbringing than it would have otherwise.


I agree with almost everything you said, and for all I know you may be 100% correct......The one thing that I think you did say, but i'm not sure....is that even in extended family models, mother and father did provide a crucial and unique structure....Women and men are naturally different , and I believe with that they provide natural different functions in child rearing....It only makes sense to conclude when a child lack one or the other...then that takes away from his or her development..

Perhaps, if a homosexual couple can bring a child into an extended family environment, where the child is being raised by different genders....then I would feel better about it..

I cannot join you in saying with certitude that a child is getting a better up-bringing with a gay family, because they have gone through an extended screening process....It is true that children that are adopted often excel at greater levels...None the less, there is a huge level of uncertainty that would come with gay parents entering the equation...
ewingxmanstarks
Banned User
Posts: 1,585
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1387 » by ewingxmanstarks » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:12 pm




Actually, i stand corrected...it is an interesting case.

three states where its illegal to video tape police officers, unless the officers allow it.

[urlhttp://www.dvafoto.com/2010/06/three-us-states-make-recording-police-activity-illegal/][/url]

The federal courts have decided that the "right to record police" is not protected by the first Amendment.

http://volokh.com/2011/01/14/court-rejects-claim-of-a-first-amendment-right-to-audio-record-police-officers/

[urlhttp://constitutionalrightsandresponsibilities.ncbar.org/newsletters/theconstitutionalistjune2011/section1983claims.aspx][/url]

There is ongoing litigation efforts by the ACLU challenging this verdict.....In Connecticut, the courts have yet to decide, and in Michigan the verdict is it's legal to record the police anytime...

I understand your point...Which is its all about individual rights..to be able to tape what ever they want while on their property in the public space...not saying you don't have an argument.

I think the argument the police have, that when they are being recorded by citizens...that can cause them to be uncomfortable, which may limit their effectiveness in the line of duty...They don't have to be guilty of wrong doing, to not like a camera on them while doing a dangerous job...Do you think they may have a valid argument...

Ultimately, I feel that if a cop asks someone to turn their camera off while they are doing police work...that is not a unreasonable request.
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1388 » by richardhutnik » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:45 pm

Just will do a closing note most likely in this thread here, which is likely to get closed.

A thing about political talk is people will end up more likely taking opposing sides than trying to find agreement on anything. In here, the police conduct should raise concern. But nope, it is now that the police is in the right. Why? Well, because a liberal raised the issue, so all conservatives must disagree.

Well, carry on. I really don't have much interest in getting into politics. People are set in their ways and words would do squat to change anything. Political realm, a bunch of parasites who suck off resources with the false promises of power, where no amount of inconsistency will not be left unchanged.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
ewingxmanstarks
Banned User
Posts: 1,585
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1389 » by ewingxmanstarks » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:16 am

^lol..are you saying I'm just disagreeing with Pharmcat, because he's a liberal?
If so you're wrong
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1390 » by richardhutnik » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:24 am

ewingxmanstarks wrote:^lol..are you saying I'm just disagreeing with Pharmcat, because he's a liberal?
If so you're wrong


I actually thought Wingo was the one who posted about the police filming.

Anyhow, take my comment as an observation. I saw people who end up taking opposing views to certain issues, simply because the person was on the other.

Take the case of Citizens United. Attended one lecture on the Supreme Court case that ruled that corporations were people. The case can be argued as bad for politics. People show up because they hate the congressperson who was there, and someone decides to end up believing the Citizens United case was a good one, because the congressperson they opposed, opposed it. This is what I am talking about.

Pardon me for not reading the full details. The point I was making was the main one I was concerned about.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1391 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:26 am

ewingxmanstarks wrote:
Capn'O wrote:
ewingxmanstarks wrote:I'm just saying unexpected consequences....the only tested model is the traditional family.

The far more children who need parents is because of unwanted pregnancies, which is a separate issue all in it self, that needs to be dealt with....to say is homosexual addoption would be a good practical solution not only is an assumption, but takes away fron personal responsibility, which is the core of the problem.


Had to go back to this. The nuclear family is not a historically common model. It's really a product of the 20th century with the apartment/subdivision model of living. More commonly, larger extended families would live together and going back even further or to less developed areas an entire tribe would raise the family together. The height of the secluded, nuclear, subdivisioned family corresponded with the 50's-70's with American cities collapsing, illegal and perscription drug epidemics, and the development of many of the social ills many conservatives rail on and on about.

Now obviously I am not suggesting a causal relationship here... but the points are that A) the nuclear family is far and away not the only tested model nor does it necessarily provide "everything a child needs" and B) the more positive influences that are in a child's life, the better off it will be. Having watched my brother and sister in-laws go through the adoption process it made me wish that all parents would have that kind of intensive personal screening before being allowed to procreate. It's really tough to adopt, whereas if any old Joe and Jane off the street want to bring a child into this world (or don't want to but do anyway) alls they gots to do is have at it a lil' with no rubbers on. Really, if a gay couple can get through the adoption screening process and show they have a plan for raising a child well I can say with absolute certainty that the child is getting a better upbringing than it would have otherwise.


I agree with almost everything you said, and for all I know you may be 100% correct......The one thing that I think you did say, but i'm not sure....is that even in extended family models, mother and father did provide a crucial and unique structure....Women and men are naturally different , and I believe with that they provide natural different functions in child rearing....It only makes sense to conclude when a child lack one or the other...then that takes away from his or her development..

Perhaps, if a homosexual couple can bring a child into an extended family environment, where the child is being raised by different genders....then I would feel better about it..

I cannot join you in saying with certitude that a child is getting a better up-bringing with a gay family, because they have gone through an extended screening process....It is true that children that are adopted often excel at greater levels...None the less, there is a huge level of uncertainty that would come with gay parents entering the equation...


Isn't there a reality show called "I Married a Monkey"?

"Marriage" is a hoax, unless you hit the lottery and found your SMF (soul mate forever). And since, believe or not, I'm a romantic I still hold out hope that it CAN happen ... it's just very unlikely. Today the divorce rate is 50%. But I have to believe that there is at least half of the remaining 50% (that equals 25% to mugzi and EXS - I figured since your party has long since given up on science, math wasn't far behind ... lol) are MBM (Miserable But Married). That leaves 25% who are not miserable and still married. But, of course, there are those married men who like to be hen-pecked and yelled at and told they're stupid. So let's shave off another 5% for those guys. Then there are all the mentally deficient who are too stupid to know that they're miserable. Another 5%. That leaves us 15%.

I'd say that half of them must be cheating on each other in one form or another ... from full-blown (no pun intended) affairs to strip clubs to cyber sex (it's all cheating, right?). That leaves about 7.5% of all married couple being "happily married."

Not a pretty picture.

But like I said, I'm a romantic at heart.
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1392 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:29 am

If you guys haven't seen this already, it's a must.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/index.html
User avatar
richardhutnik
Banned User
Posts: 22,092
And1: 10
Joined: Oct 13, 2001
Location: Linsanity? What is that?
Contact:

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1393 » by richardhutnik » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:51 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:If you guys haven't seen this already, it's a must.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/index.html


There are some individuals who believe that, unless you have government restrict the amount courts can deal punitive damages, it will be impossible to keep costs down, and everyone pays in the end. This essential bit of protection for corporations and other professionals is essential, or else costs won't be kept lower.

- Rich
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - G. Marx
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1394 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:59 am

richardhutnik wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:If you guys haven't seen this already, it's a must.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/index.html


There are some individuals who believe that, unless you have government restrict the amount courts can deal punitive damages, it will be impossible to keep costs down, and everyone pays in the end. This essential bit of protection for corporations and other professionals is essential, or else costs won't be kept lower.

- Rich


Well, looky looky here. Where ya been, man? You ok?

Regarding punitive damages, the Supreme Court has already restricted it. Basically, "punies" can't be more than a 9:1 ratio to compensatory damages (lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering).
User avatar
tuckerfor3
Pro Prospect
Posts: 754
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 13, 2008

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1395 » by tuckerfor3 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:07 am

Hutnik's back, thank christ!

I thought we were gonna have to call somebody up from the D-League! :lol:
Image
HarthorneWingo
RealGM
Posts: 97,546
And1: 62,686
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1396 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:54 am

Secret meetings with the Cocaine brothers, eh? Only no good can come from that. Tisk, tisk, tisk. :wavefinger:

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/06/r ... nt-page-1/

Rick Scott attends secret Koch brothers meeting in Colorado
by Dara Kam | June 28th, 2011

Florida Gov. Rick Scott attended a secret, invitation-only meeting outside Vail, Colo., hosted by conservative billionaire GOP donors David and Charles Koch, the governor’s staff confirmed today.

The meeting wasn’t on Scott’s official schedule and his spokesman Lane Wright initially refused to confirm or deny whether the first-term governor would make an appearance, saying he would not “speculate as to what he has done, or will do on his personal time.”

But, after The St. Petersburg Times reported Tuesday Scott did attend the meeting, Wright confirmed that the governor was there but would not say whether Scott was in Colorado on Sunday or Monday.

“I told anybody who asked me,” Scott, in Washington, D.C., told the Times, without revealing too much about what took place.

“It was very interesting,” he told the Times. “They wanted to know basically… what am I doing in Florida.”

Scott, the self-proclaimed “jobs governor,” joined at least three other conservative Republican heads-of-state at the semi-annual meeting.

Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Bob McDonnell of Virginia all dropped into the conference, entitled “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Enterprise and Prosperity.” And Scott’s competitor-in-chief, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, addressed the group on Sunday, the first of the four-day meeting that wraps up Wednesday.

“The purpose of this conference is to develop support for the kind of free-market policies and initiatives that can get our country back on the path to economic prosperity and sustained job creation,” a spokeswoman for Koch Industries told The Denver Post last week.

Kansas-based Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States, earned $100 billion in revenues in 2009, is controlled by Charles and David Koch, political activists who have donated more than $100 million to conservative GOP causes over the past three decades, according to a New Yorker profile. The pair have recently donated to tea party groups and organizations opposed to President Obama.

Florida Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff blasted Scott for secretly leaving the state during a state of emergency he declared because of wildfires.

“For Rick Scott to secretly leave the state during a state of emergency is completely irresponsible and shows why he continues to be the least popular governor in America,” Jotkoff said.
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1397 » by mugzi » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:34 am

Lets not start comparing so called evil billionaires with political agendas, because no1 takes the cake more than this guy and you know it. :lol:

Image
Trust but verify.
User avatar
GONYK
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 67,004
And1: 45,775
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Brunson Gang
   

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1398 » by GONYK » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:20 am

Not trying to be confrontational here, but can someone explain to me how groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity, that don't have to disclose their donors, won't lead to the complete loss of democracy over time?

If our officials are essentially being elected by corporations, or even other countries, and we have no way of finding out, let alone stopping it, how is that not the end of America being a country of the people?

I mean, if publicly financed elections aren't allowed to level the playing field, corporations have the same rights as a person, and politicians start advocating laws that make voting more restrictive, possibly at the behest of their major corporate donors that will never be accounted for, how can anyone support that?
User avatar
Capn'O
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 90,736
And1: 110,912
Joined: Dec 16, 2005
Location: Bone Goal
 

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1399 » by Capn'O » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:38 pm

HawthorneWingo wrote:
ewingxmanstarks wrote:I agree with almost everything you said, and for all I know you may be 100% correct......The one thing that I think you did say, but i'm not sure....is that even in extended family models, mother and father did provide a crucial and unique structure....Women and men are naturally different , and I believe with that they provide natural different functions in child rearing....It only makes sense to conclude when a child lack one or the other...then that takes away from his or her development..

Perhaps, if a homosexual couple can bring a child into an extended family environment, where the child is being raised by different genders....then I would feel better about it..

I cannot join you in saying with certitude that a child is getting a better up-bringing with a gay family, because they have gone through an extended screening process....It is true that children that are adopted often excel at greater levels...None the less, there is a huge level of uncertainty that would come with gay parents entering the equation...


Isn't there a reality show called "I Married a Monkey"?

"Marriage" is a hoax, unless you hit the lottery and found your SMF (soul mate forever). And since, believe or not, I'm a romantic I still hold out hope that it CAN happen ... it's just very unlikely. Today the divorce rate is 50%. But I have to believe that there is at least half of the remaining 50% (that equals 25% to mugzi and EXS - I figured since your party has long since given up on science, math wasn't far behind ... lol) are MBM (Miserable But Married). That leaves 25% who are not miserable and still married. But, of course, there are those married men who like to be hen-pecked and yelled at and told they're stupid. So let's shave off another 5% for those guys. Then there are all the mentally deficient who are too stupid to know that they're miserable. Another 5%. That leaves us 15%.

I'd say that half of them must be cheating on each other in one form or another ... from full-blown (no pun intended) affairs to strip clubs to cyber sex (it's all cheating, right?). That leaves about 7.5% of all married couple being "happily married."

Not a pretty picture.

But like I said, I'm a romantic at heart.


HW - I disagree strongly with that sentiment. I think the idea of a SMF is what is a hoax. It's a mythical unicorn and trying to catch it will only lead to delusion or disappointment. Especially in the first few years if you're looking for the perfect one you're going to be looking at other women and seeing that this one is better for me at one aspect and another is better at another aspect. The way that love based marriages work, imo, is you find somebody that is pretty close and recognize you're at one level and that it will take work to get to antoher level. My wife and I have way more in common now than we did when we met and can mutually admire the things that make us different at this point.

Did we start with her being the best woman for me in the world? I don't know... we had a good time... but almost definitely not. But at this point there is no substitute! I hope you find one for you.

To X-man: This is one article that sums up the research I've seen about kids raised by two gay parents:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

But most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships.


and


Some liberals chimed in too, notably Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, who cited "a growing body of research that tells us the child raised without his or her biological father is significantly more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, drop out altogether, become a teen parent, exhibit behavioral problems, smoke, drink, use drugs or wind up in jail."

The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.



This is pretty consistent with what I've experienced in my own life with kids raised by gay parents. Now, I know some gay couples (and couples in general) that I wouldn't want anywhere near children... but the kids of the ones that are stable, file, and pass seem no worse for the wear.
BAF Clippers:
UNDER CONSTRUCTION - PLEASE INQUIRE WITHIN

:beer:
User avatar
mugzi
General Manager
Posts: 9,210
And1: 1,060
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Location: SB mountains. 6000 feet up.
       

Re: The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts he 

Post#1400 » by mugzi » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:23 pm

Im not indicting gay parents and saying they can't raise a normal productive member of society. But what I am indicting is an agenda of tearing down the archetype of the nuclear family in an ongoing effort to water down and erase gender roles.

Homosexual, transexual, same sex couples, pre-op, post-op, where does it end?

Can two gay men or women teach a boy or a girl how to love, revere or have a healthy normal relationship with a member of the opposite sex?

If you tear down the nuclear family, society crumbles. There's no argument against that fact. Everything you see today, the society that we have is based upon family.

Now those with the liberal mindset will say "well theres nothing wrong with gay people raising kids, they are viable members of society too."

Sure if they are law abiding and work for a living and don't suck from the gov't teet thats correct.

But as for me, I don't believe it''s ideal or preferred. Not saying it should be illegal, but all things being equal a heterosexual couple should always have precedence over a gay couple in the adoption process.

If gays were meant to be parents then a man and a man or a woman and a woman could and would be able to reproduce, but they can't. That's a fact, until some whacko scientist tries to change biology in the name of "progress."
Trust but verify.

Return to New York Knicks