What is a Liberal?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by wludavid
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please cite some.

Marrying the same sex is one. It is legal for straight men and for gay men to marry a woman. It is not legal for straight men or gay men to marry a man. If gay men are asking to marry gay men, they are indeed asking for "special rights.'

[nostatic]

Originally posted by aways
All other things being equal, the ideal to be pursued is adoption by a mother and father.

why?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
why?

Obviously no childhood is complete without personally witnessing how a woman can torture her husband. It helps the male child develop healthy attitudes regarding marriage (avoidance), etc...And prepares the female child with future tactics for controlling/punishing men (nagging, withholding sex, beer, TV, etc).

[speeder]

OK, that's funny.

[fintstone]

Not to mention the ultimate revenge...making him sell the 911 and drive a "family car"......or "gasp"........a minivan.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Shaun, isn't this the cornerstone of liberal "religious" dogma? Aberations, deviations from the normal course of nature, do normally prove to be inferior. In the natural world, they seldom survive for long at all. Yet this theory, centered around aberations actually being superior, and surviving to reproduce, continues to thrive virtually unchallenged. Liberalism even defends it with a somewhat religious zeal. Which is it then; are aberations inferior or superior? Or is it all in the connotation?

Jeff, I have no idea what the cornerstone is. Our statements agree and from a strict biological perspective can be tested and proven. the issue I have is that humans have at this point risen above the biology, so the same rules don't apply. And it's this ascension (pun intended), that provides us with the opportunity for a homosexual lifestyle to be equal to a heterosexual lifestyle on all levels.

[cool_chick]

Shaun, isn't this the cornerstone of liberal "religious" dogma? Aberations, deviations from the normal course of nature, do normally prove to be inferior. In the natural world, they seldom survive for long at all. Yet this theory, centered around aberations actually being superior, and surviving to reproduce, continues to thrive virtually unchallenged. Liberalism even defends it with a somewhat religious zeal. Which is it then; are aberations inferior or superior? Or is it all in the connotation?

homosexuality isn't an aberation in the wild. It's prevalant in other animal species.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by cool_chick
homosexuality isn't an aberation in the wild. It's prevalant in other animal species.

So is incest, infantcide, rape, murder, assault, theft, etc. etc. Because animals practice it, it becomes acceptable among humans? C'mon, you're brighter than that.

Gays just recently started citing "homosexuality" in the animal world as justification for their own behavior. It was amazing how fast the more clueless elements of the left latched on to that one. Without even the most cursory examination (under which that argument crumbles) they all jumped gleefully, exclaiming "the animals do it, it must be o.k.!"

We are not animals. Well, most of us anyway. I know that is yet another distinction the left has a hard time with, yet it is rather apparent to the rest of us. Yet another bullet to add to the list of "what is a liberal" and, more importantly, "what drives average, clear thinking people away from modern liberalism".

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
--wludavid-- Sorry bro, but you're wrong again...

It seems I am. Guess there's a first time for everything. I'll have to look a little more into this.

Originally posted by pwd72s
You cite yours...I'm tired of typing long responses...especially to those who wouldn't read them.

Come on, play nice. I've been reading all the posts here. I've tried to back up my opinion with reasoning, whereas I don't see any evidence of "asking for extra rights" from my perspective so I asked for evidence.

Originally posted by fintstone
Marrying the same sex is one. It is legal for straight men and for gay men to marry a woman. It is not legal for straight men or gay men to marry a man. If gay men are asking to marry gay men, they are indeed asking for "special rights.'

If I were gay, I wouldn't be asking for the extra right of marrying another gay man. I'd stand up for the rights of straight men to marry other straight men too. Why shouldn't two elderly unmarried bachelors (or widowers) partner up to share health insurance and pensions? Why is that so different from an elderly woman and man in a platonic friendship doing the same thing?

Originally posted by fintstone
Obviously no childhood is complete without personally witnessing how a woman can torture her husband. It helps the male child develop healthy attitudes regarding marriage (avoidance), etc...And prepares the female child with future tactics for controlling/punishing men (nagging, withholding sex, beer, TV, etc).

Fint has a sense of humor?

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
So is incest, infantcide, rape, murder, assault, theft, etc. etc. Because animals practice it, it becomes acceptable among humans? C'mon, you're brighter than that.

The argument is not that it's okay because the animals do it.

The argument is that it's not unnatural because the animals do it.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by cool_chick
homosexuality isn't an aberation in the wild. It's prevalant in other animal species.

I disagree. Homosexuality for the vast majority of species on this planet is a biological aberation. Sort of proof that Intelligent Design is pure bunk. But on topic, I believe that the human-only qualities of conscience and reason give us an innate moral compass that makes it possible for hetero and homosexuals to co-exist on a level playing field, to treat each other with compassion and respect deserving of everyone practicing the same.

Sadly, some men in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago wrote the moral code for Modern Man, a code that bypasses our own conscience.

[Nathans_Dad]

Wludavid--Big time props to you man, seriously. Able to intelligently debate a topic and look at both sides without resorting to the usual insults that we see on this board. I'll have a beer with you anytime...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Wludavid--Big time props to you man, seriously. Able to intelligently debate a topic and look at both sides without resorting to the usual insults that we see on this board. I'll have a beer with you anytime...

Agree with ND on this one but still have a problem with the "straight men marrying other straight men" for any reason.

I fit nicely into this catagory and there is no way that I would entertain marrying anyone other than a lady, period. Would rather be a WalMart greeter to get benefits than marry a guy, sorry.

Kinda side with Shaun on this one. Animals may from time to time play around with the same sex but if they did it all the time when would they replicate? That I know of humans are the only ones who take the same sex as a partner (sex or not) on a long term basis. Nope, just do not buy this one. BTW, Shaun when are you going to contact me about the $500 bet? This is notice 3?

Guess I am a bit old fashioned. I have gay friends and do not have a problem with their lifestyle but having been around various swimming pools for most of my life, if there is a lady standing next to a guy, there just is no question who I am going to glance at and its not going to be the one with the hairy legs!

joeA

[lendaddy]

What I don't get is this defense that homosexuality is just a difference like race or gender or something. It's obviously a gentic malfunction or defect so why this desire to claim otherwise? Just because it's a defect doesn't mean it's "bad" it's just not correct. There is no hatred or contempt in my remarks, just reality. I have a buddy that is colorblind and a dyslexic friend too, their genetic makeup got jacked up.....so what.

[aways]

Originally posted by nostatic
why?

Despite the attempts if leftists to deconstruct the differences between men and women, ever notice that there are psychologic as well as physical differences? Some of us believe that it's healthy for children to be exposed to both sexes in our development. Instead of thinking of the situation in the abstract, ask yourself if it really would have made NO difference to you if you were raised in a traditional home, or by a lesbian couple?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Agree with ND on this one but still have a problem with the "straight men marrying other straight men" for any reason.

I fit nicely into this catagory and there is no way that I would entertain marrying anyone other than a lady, period. Would rather be a WalMart greeter to get benefits than marry a guy, sorry.

Kinda side with Shaun on this one. Animals may from time to time play around with the same sex but if they did it all the time when would they replicate? That I know of humans are the only ones who take the same sex as a partner (sex or not) on a long term basis. Nope, just do not buy this one. BTW, Shaun when are you going to contact me about the $500 bet? This is notice 3?

Guess I am a bit old fashioned. I have gay friends and do not have a problem with their lifestyle but having been around various swimming pools for most of my life, if there is a lady standing next to a guy, there just is no question who I am going to glance at and its not going to be the one with the hairy legs!

joeA

Jesus Christ Joe, first it's only twice, why you continue with this bazaar insistence that you did is beyond me, a quick scan of pages 5 onward proves it, second, I sent you an email to:

Joe A***h**s** joeaksa@at**l***l.***

yesterday at 8:14AM after the first time you said to contact you. Are you telling us all you didn't get it? Did your dog eat it?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by aways
Despite the attempts if leftists to deconstruct the differences between men and women, ever notice that there are psychologic as well as physical differences? Some of us believe that it's healthy for children to be exposed to both sexes in our development. Instead of thinking of the situation in the abstract, ask yourself if it really would have made NO difference to you if you were raised in a traditional home, or by a lesbian couple?

Men and women do play very different roles (or rolls for the spelling thread) in terms of parenting.

I can speak more to a dad's role; men generally set boundaries for boys and create role models for girl's future relationships (both + and - I'm sad to say).

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by wludavid
The argument is not that it's okay because the animals do it.

The argument is that it's not unnatural because the animals do it.

I must dissagree, David. The argument completely loses its relevance if this is the basis for it. The very strong inference behind this argument is that it is OKAY because animals do it.

The argument has never been whether homosexuality is a naturally occurring aberation. The argument is whether people should succumb to their unhealthy desires and act upon those urges. Animals don't know any better. Humans do.

As far as that argument goes, I could care less if people want to partake of the gay lifestyle. I only start to care when they start to whine, asking for special considerations because they are gay. I do not support their position that they deserve any because they are gay, and I do not support polticians (typically liberals) that support them.

We started off discussing what a liberal was on this thread. It then kind of evolved into why some of us can no longer consider ourselves "liberals" in spite of holding many liberal values. The gay issue was brought up as an example of one that modern liberalism has adopted that has driven people like me away. It's not because we are hateful or intolerant (or whatever other labels liberals like to throw our way); it's because we dissagree with the party line on some newly adopted liberal causes. This is just one of many. You can argue in its favor all you want; we are already familiar with those arguments and dissagree with them. And we are no longer liberals. Your numbers are shrinking by the day; that's the real point of all of this.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
We started off discussing what a liberal was on this thread. It then kind of evolved into why some of us can no longer consider ourselves "liberals" in spite of holding many liberal values. The gay issue was brought up as an example of one that modern liberalism has adopted that has driven people like me away. It's not because we are hateful or intolerant (or whatever other labels liberals like to throw our way); it's because we dissagree with the party line on some newly adopted liberal causes. This is just one of many. You can argue in its favor all you want; we are already familiar with those arguments and dissagree with them. And we are no longer liberals.

It works both ways though. I used to be more conservative, but the current set of pet issues for the Right and allegiance with the Christian Right has turned me off completely. I more agree with (or at least respect) thought-out conservative viewpoints than I do with rabid dogmatic liberal ones. Some of my best friends are Republicans! ND and Joeaksa, that's why I think it's so important to admit the possibility of being mistaken. If you never do, how will people know you'd ever be willing to admit to error? (Sound like anyone we know?)

Your numbers are shrinking by the day; that's the real point of all of this.

Second, they're not my numbers. To me, the best use for the democratic party right now is to provide just enough organization to oust the current Repub dominance in gov't. The government works best when there is lots of respectful disagreement, and works worst when there's this much divisiveness and animosity.

The GOP and its supporters have been making the same complaints about the dems for a while - they have no vision, no unity, no leadership. What they miss is those attributes give the strength of diversity of opinions and the ability to disagree with one another. IMO, respectful disagreement within a party is healthier than every rank and file using the same talking points. In the sound bite world of news though, too often it's just the talking points that get through to people.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by aways
Despite the attempts if leftists to deconstruct the differences between men and women, ever notice that there are psychologic as well as physical differences? Some of us believe that it's healthy for children to be exposed to both sexes in our development. Instead of thinking of the situation in the abstract, ask yourself if it really would have made NO difference to you if you were raised in a traditional home, or by a lesbian couple?

a large number of kids are raised in single parent homes.

If I was raised by a warm and loving gay or lesbian couple, yes, it might have made a difference. I might not be as screwed up as I am now.

I understand your argument, and see the need "in a perfect world" for yin/yang input into the child. But I don't believe that it is absolutely required. You can find your yin and yang in other places...

ymmv.