quote:Originally posted by T e x: remove the threat, whatever that is...
Mom ain't the final say. But you gotta balance her influence, for sure...
As long as the kids see you're trying...that counts.
I am not willing to sacrafice my other (5) kids for one whos mother has promised to make me pay if I Try to see my daughter. I am not scared of anyone, but I protect my family.......... apparantly in my own way, this girl is nutz and it is a shame we have a child but based on the fact that I have others and she has threataned them, I need to protect my own.
-------------------- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? Posts: 2549 | From: MN | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: I like gays...they're alot of fun...
When you say you love gays.....................is it cause they can decorate a room like a S.O.B. or cause they can pack good? Apparantly they have a system.
-------------------- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? Posts: 2549 | From: MN | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
What if MOM doesn't want you there, plus, she makes your life a living hell when you try to be there. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I have 2 daughters and 2 step daughters...
My oldest daughters mother and I were never married. When we split up she didn't want me there and she tried to make my life a living hell...Fu(k her...I was there every other weekend, holidays, and any time I could be with her...I was there!
My youngest daughter's mother and I were married and divorced...she didn't want me there either, but she sure wanted child support. She also tried to make my life a living hell...
You know what...Fu(k her too! Not only was I there, but I fought tooth and nail for joint physical custody, and won. I spend 3 weekends a month, all holiday vacations, and all summer with her...
My 2 step daughter's biological father was not and is still not there for them...but I am!
All in all I will have paid child support for almost 30 years. I didn't do it because the courts forced me to...I did it because I love my girls and wanted them to be well taken care of. More importantly though....I WAS THERE!
-------------------- ------------------------- It's all in the timing.... Posts: 2931 | From: The Motor City | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was raised religiously and went to a religious university and I was ASTOUNDED at the number of people who began and ended their political affiliations based on homosexuality and abortion alone.
Yes, I agree that too many people believe that candidates are only acceptable if they argree with EVERY position. Until Jesus himself runs for office, I understand I will disagree with something with every candidate.
They may or may not be natural, and given time they may be evitable, but for the foreseeable future they are what they are.
That's just the thing, Big. If we don't hold the fort on marriage and it's importance these things will only grow because each succeeding generation with have less and less reason to stay married. It will get worse, not better.
I pose you a question. If it isn't good that everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is right...then who gets to choose? It has to be someone.
From a societal point of view, the majority gets to. It is the only way for the bulk of the people to be happy. There will never be a time that EVERYONE is happy, so the only answer is to the least number of people unhappy and feel bad for the rest. As of the last census, just over 78% of the population is self described as belonging to some religion that considers homosexuality at the very least an 'alternative' lifestyle. That means that to raise it to the level of the traditional home, you are going against the personal beliefs of the majority. As I posted earlier, that is the road to more problems as the majority feels they are being ignored. Until the group (society) decides that it's ok, any attempts to force the issue is going to sow more harm than good. That just the facts of group dynamics.
The reason I say the examples above are incompatible with our current conversation is that you have used violence and two forms of addictive substances to justify your argument.
My only attempted correlation between them as to point out that whatever the child sees as being acceptable to the parents heavily influences what they will later view as acceptable. The smoking and drinking were simply items that multiple studies have been done on so that we can comfortably draw conclusions that where the child sees them occur, they later have a higher chance of following in their footsteps.
Have to run, Big, will finish addressing the rest of your post later.
Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
What if MOM doesn't want you there, plus, she makes your life a living hell when you try to be there.
I have 2 daughters and 2 step daughters...
My oldest daughters mother and I were never married. When we split up she didn't want me there and she tried to make my life a living hell...Fu(k her...I was there every other weekend, holidays, and any time I could be with her...I was there!
My youngest daughter's mother and I were married and divorced...she didn't want me there either, but she sure wanted child support. She also tried to make my life a living hell...
You know what...Fu(k her too! Not only was I there, but I fought tooth and nail for joint physical custody, and won. I spend 3 weekends a month, all holiday vacations, and all summer with her...
My 2 step daughter's biological father was not and is still not there for them...but I am!
All in all I will have paid child support for almost 30 years. I didn't do it because the courts forced me to...I did it because I love my girls and wanted them to be well taken care of. More importantly though....I WAS THERE! [/QB][/QUOTE] yep...had to fight for time with my oldest daughter. Her mom pulled some nasty trix...eventually, my daughter asked me to file for custody, so I did. Worked out swell...
posted
In right and wrong with our current topic we are either talking about right straight sex/wrong gay sex or right male-female gender roles played out in male-female relationship/ wrong male-female gender roles played out in (fe)male-(fe)male relationship.
While I a personally believe in divinely based right and wrong, for the current discussion I am limiting it to what the society considers right and wrong. Societies define their rights and wrongs through legislation and social stigmas. 'Right' becomes what is generally accepted as good for the society and 'wrong,' inversely, what is considered damaging to it.
For all the talk of tolerance and open mindedness, the majority of people in the U.S. still do not consider the gay lifestyle as 'just as good' as the hetero. It is still seen as different, not simply one of the several equal choices.
By so choosing, the individual is seen (in some respects rightly) as making themselves more important than the 'herd.' By so doing, they deny the procreative instincts and therefor become a genetic dead end. This is the same stigma attached to women (hetero) who decide to never have children. No matter how you want to look at it, she (or they if a couple) is seen as making an 'odd' choice as the family making instinct is natural.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, my 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with the physical sex involved. So, I'll focus on the gender role aspect of your post.
As much as the women's lib folk would like people to believe that men and women are the same...we're not. Physical and emotional differences in the genders predispose us to different natural roles. The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role. The female, through physical traits such as womb and mammary glands, is uniquely qualified to be the nuturer. These roles are both natural and bred into us socially since the dawn of time. When you play with these roles, some instinct screams that something just isn't right. In our current hypothetical homosexual parent family, neither of the roles is clear because one is absent and the other portrayed in two seperate ways.
It is possible for a child to identify with the aggressor within this type of relationship and repeat what has been learned. More naturally though the child identifies with the abused as they relate their own lack of adult strength with the weakness of the lesser partner.
Once again, social sciences tell us that it depends on the gender of the child and that of the abusive parent. If they are the same, they learn that that is part of their role. If they are the gender of the abused parent or are the abused themselves, they generally learn that they 'deserve' it and thus come to expect it from other relationships.
Gender roles are no longer tied down to physiological gender. The women liberation movement destroyed that ideology. And given the success that we have found that women can achieve within a "Man's World" we now know that it was good to remove that barrier.
And they did so at the expense of the family unit. There is a finite amount of time. If the woman spends the required amount outside of the home to persue a career, she spends less time nuturing the children (if she has any). That is what we've been talking about with the 'Cat's in the Cradle' song. Where you spend your time tells people what you consider valuable. Kids pick up on that quick.
Finally, as to the Bible thing. Glass, I'm the wrong flavor of Christian to be phased by the whole biblical contradictions thing. We Mormons love the Bible dearly, but we accept that men have played with it over the centuries. We take everything in it with a grain of salt. Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Times have changed.. at one point of time we had segregation and some of the same bigots today (the right christians fanatics) were saying the same thing when the Civil Rights movement was in full force... if this goes through attitudes will change over time and everyone will see it wasn't such a threat as they thought much like integration wasn't...
You've got the process backwards, Mach. Until the majority of people feel that this is a fully acceptable alternative lifestyle on par with traditional family, legislation 'forcing' gay marriage on the society will only alienate. It will alienate the bulk of the people because they feel their will was ignored and only heighten the tensions.
The racial segregation stayed in place until a large enough portion of the population felt that it was wrong.
Group dynamics.
Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will alienate the bulk of the people because they feel their will was ignored and only heighten the tensions.
invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role.
dang, man i thought i had long arms, but it's only my knuckles that drag... i bet your elbows drag too
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26228 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, I'm the wrong flavor of Christian to be phased by the whole biblical contradictions thing. We Mormons love the Bible dearly, but we accept that men have played with it over the centuries. We take everything in it with a grain of salt.
never read Joseph Smiths work... any good?
-------------------- "Man is the only kinda varmint that sets his own trap, baits it, and steps in it." Posts: 26228 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
Once again, I'm not invoking moral anything. As far as the majority part, well, I haven't seen any hetero pride parades...but I'm guessing it would be sufficiently large enough to impress.
dang, man i thought i had long arms, but it's only my knuckles that drag... i bet your elbows drag too
Elbows, no. Forearms, occasionally.
never read Joseph Smiths work... any good?
Spent two years selling it...I like it. Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:invoking the moral majority doesn't prove that they are either moral or the majority...
Once again, I'm not invoking moral anything. As far as the majority part, well, I haven't seen any hetero pride parades...but I'm guessing it would be sufficiently large enough to impress.
I know, Tex. Technically half the gay parade could use that bumper sticker anyway.
i guess invoking the moral minority works in this country - and stampedes the majority
that is so BS
Invoking the minority at the expense of the majority's opinion has always been a problem, Money. But because we're so afraid of litigation from people like the ACLU, we give in when we should stand up.
Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "Technically half"
i wonder...kinda interesting stat, that would be.
ROFLMAO, I hadn't thought of it that way but the jokes from that one write themselves.
I just meant that if half (statistically) the parade is gay and half lesbian then half would qualify for the sticker.
Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: From a societal point of view, the majority gets to.
While I a personally believe in divinely based right and wrong, for the current discussion I am limiting it to what the society considers right and wrong. Societies define their rights and wrongs through legislation and social stigmas. 'Right' becomes what is generally accepted as good for the society and 'wrong,' inversely, what is considered damaging to it.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority? You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
If the best answer you can give to me is that the majority says it isn't right, then I consider myself vindicated in my argument that it is discrimination alone.
Gotta do better than that SF.
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3872 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, as I mentioned earlier, my 'right and wrong' has nothing to do with the physical sex involved. So, I'll focus on the gender role aspect of your post.
You are focusing on what now? The gender role and not physical?
quote: As much as the women's lib folk would like people to believe that men and women are the same...we're not. Physical and emotional differences in the genders predispose us to different natural roles. The male is generally bigger and stronger and therefore predisposed to the breadwinner\hunter role. The female, through physical traits such as womb and mammary glands, is uniquely qualified to be the nuturer. These roles are both natural and bred into us socially since the dawn of time. When you play with these roles, some instinct screams that something just isn't right. In our current hypothetical homosexual parent family, neither of the roles is clear because one is absent and the other portrayed in two seperate ways.
Your focus on the gender role seems to be completely grounded within the physical realm.
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
-------------------- What is your goal? Do you know? If so you are already one step ahead of the pack. Posts: 3872 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
5 people are stranded on an island (don't worry about gender or race, these are 5 generic faceless personages resembling human beings) with no hope of rescue. Determining that they are stuck with each other for the rest of their natural lives they decide together on what life is going to be like on the island. Since they are not clones of eachother raised with the exact same life experiences they obviously will disagree with at least one of the other 4 members on something at some point in their future. Now, since most decisions can't be made both ways (as it will affect the existance of all members) a decision will have to be made.
Three options exist as to the outcome of the disagreement.
1)The majority rules concept. Vote is taken, most number of votes wins.
2)The minority rules concept. Someone is apparently so important that they get to demand that others bow to their will even as it contradicts their own.
3)Seperation. The outvoted party leaves the group (voluntarily) and lives life according to their beliefs elsewhere.
In our current country, option 3 really isn't generally considered viable because if everyone left the U.S. because they disagreed with it about something it did everyone would be gone in short order. So we are left with options 1 and 2.
I'm surprised at you SF. You took the standard BS answer.
You are willing to let your argument be justified by what is considered 'right' by the majority?
Yes. Once again, this is simple but I'll spell it out...again.
Only two choices exist on this one, Big. You tell me which you like better.
1) God exists and has defined for and to man what is right and wrong. As the One that will judge men's actions at some point, He is uniquely qualifed to make the distinctions. This leads us to the determination that when He says homosexuality is wrong, it is. The rest of the discussion about gay marriage is therefore pointless.
or
2) God doesn't exist and we're left to our own to determine 'right' and 'wrong.' Since this is something that there doesn't seem to be a unanimous consensus, we are left with the previously mentioned three options as to how to determine where each disagreement falls.
The majority chooses making the minority unhappy; the minority chooses, making the majority unhappy; or the minority goes off to some corner of the world where they can practice what they want as they want.
Once again...which do you think should be the answer, Big?
If you define discrimination as the will of the majority holding sway, then yes, it's discrimination. However, if the group has decided that this isn't what they want, who would you rather have unhappy? The majority or the minority?
You need me to point out the track record of that position?
The Earth is Flat The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition The Red Man is a savage that must be exterminated The Black Man is a beast of burden The Woman should be seen and not heard
I can go on.
Please do. Other than the Earth is Flat item (which is a scientific question, not a moral one), the rest of these items fall completely under my previous postings as well as this one. To come out and say that they are 'wrong,' you have to explain your basis for such a distinction. Either there is a divinely accepted right and wrong, or it's simply a matter of what the bulk of the people can stomache. There is no middle ground on this one, Big.
God or might makes right. Which is it?
'Some Instinct'? What is that? Could it be.....your own beliefs being projected onto another???
Now you're getting as bad as Mach.
I'm not projecting my beliefs on anyone. I'm trying to get you to make a choice. Either you accept that there is an objective criteria for right and wrong (such as divine will), or you must accept that if we are all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves then it means where two or more people disagree on the 'right' choice, the majority should get to decide what it allows and that becomes the 'right' for that group.
Once again, there is no middle ground.
You tell me which you would have us believe.
Posts: 542 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)