Honestly there's nothing malicious in my intent. Just poking a little fun is all. If you wanna poke a little fun at us for living in igloos or eating blubber, be my guest. I have much love for America, but I love Canada too and pretty constantly make fun of aspects of this country as well. But if it annoys you that I do so, I shall attempt to refrain from the pot shots wherever possible (though sometimes it'll be too easy to pass up)
I know it is not mallicious or aimed at anyone in particular. It just gets old. Especially the sarcastic one liners like "God bless America" or "Land of the Free indeed!". You're not the only one who does it. There is PLENTY that I can't stand about my country. I certainly won't refrain from sharing my opinion on those issues either.
I don't have any desire to poke fun at Canadians. First of all, my wife is 1/4 Inupiaq (Alaskan Eskimo) so I'm not big on blubber and igloo jokes. Secondly, my wife moved to Canada when she was 6 months old and spent the next 17 years there. She is Canadian, though not a citizen. Thirdly, being from NW Montana and having made many trips across the border, I love Canada!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I wish there were more positive stories about America, but as well all know those don't get reported. The newsmedia mantra is "If it bleeds, it leads"; obviously negative and polarizing stories get more play (ratings and reads) than stories of positivity. That usually is why they squeeze them in at the end of the broadcast, after 29 minutes of negativity.
No argument there. Don Henley wrote a great song about that 30 years ago and it has only gotten worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
And Chick-Fil-A sucks when you have Popeyes available to eat from as well. Mmmm Popeyes.
Amen to that, though Popeyes could use a good chicken sandwich alternative to the Po' Boy which is nothing more than strips on a bun. I'm no Chik-Fil-A fan.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
I found this to be rather thought provoking. Particularly the unnecessary part. Is marriage really necessary these days? What for? Does it serve some vital purpose, or is it becoming an archaic 'tradition' that could be lost to time. This should keep me busy at work tomorrow.
A same-sex couple being able to marry involves a lot more than the religious aspects of "traditional marriage." There are tax benefits, as well as insurance benefits involved, as well as issues that come up when one part of that couple falls ill--if not legally married, no matter how long a couple has been together, the healthy partner would be unable to access health information for their mate. If that mate were to pass away, the living partner would be unable to reap the same benefits that a straight widow/widower would receive. If that couple had children, often only one parent would have legal rights to said children, and the remaining parent would have no legal connection to keep those children, placing them in an already over-wrought foster care system.
Those of you who are so adamantly supporting "traditional marriage" how would you feel if your children were taken from you if your mate died? If you were unable to get your mate's legal/financial benefits if they were to pass away?
These simple, basic things are what you're saying homosexual couples don't deserve. The love, camaraderie, security and companionship of a healthy, long-lasting relationship?
This does not affect heterosexual marriages. It does not cheapen your marriage anymore than 24 hour chapels in Vegas cheapen the institution. Why are these same "traditional marriage" proponents not arguing against divorces, or against people remarrying if their marriage did not end due to adultery? The only way someone can remarry, per the Bible, is if one partner commits adultery, or if one partner dies. So why aren't these same people clamoring against quickie divorces?
It isn't about the "sanctity of marriage" any more than most "pro-life" groups are about supporting healthy quality of life for children. It's about controlling a group of people that someone sees as inferior.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
If that couple had children, often only one parent would have legal rights to said children, and the remaining parent would have no legal connection to keep those children, placing them in an already over-wrought foster care system.
Someone did a piss poor job explaining the birds and the bees to you when you were younger. That couple can't "have" children.
Someone did a piss poor job explaining the birds and the bees to you when you were younger. That couple can't "have" children.
A gay male couple can adopt, those children would likely consider their parents to be their fathers, as most adopted children do.
For lesbians it's even easier! Get a sperm donor! Then ta-da, that lesbian couple has a child.
I have a client at work whose daughter is dying, and her partner is scrambling because the children are biologically not hers, and if her wife dies, those children go into foster care.
Explain to me how that's fair?
And then, while you're at it, explain to me why those who clamor on about the "sanctity of marriage" aren't protesting outside the offices of divorce lawyers, who are not only assisting in the breakdown of marriages, but they're also profiting huge amounts of money to do so.
If it was about sanctity of marriage, truly, there wouldn't be such a laissez faire take on divorce in this country.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
If porn teaches us anything, it's that a lesbian couple will inevitably invite a man into their little arrangement at the slightest excuse, and thus procreation can occur. So at least one half of the gay couples don't even have to adopt.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
A gay male couple can adopt, those children would likely consider their parents to be their fathers, as most adopted children do.
For lesbians it's even easier! Get a sperm donor! Then ta-da, that lesbian couple has a child.
I have a client at work whose daughter is dying, and her partner is scrambling because the children are biologically not hers, and if her wife dies, those children go into foster care.
Explain to me how that's fair?
Do you think it is fair to bring a child into the world without a father? Especially when there are plenty of children in the world in foster care?
Quote:
And then, while you're at it, explain to me why those who clamor on about the "sanctity of marriage" aren't protesting outside the offices of divorce lawyers, who are not only assisting in the breakdown of marriages, but they're also profiting huge amounts of money to do so.
If it was about sanctity of marriage, truly, there wouldn't be such a laissez faire take on divorce in this country.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Divorce is far too easy to get and it does mean people do take marriage far less seriously. It's unfortunate that there's no support to make it more difficult to get.
Having children means creating children, not adopting or raising them.
I do some litigation work with respect to child protection matters, and one thing is clear to me (this is a trite observation, but whatever): creating children is the easy part of having children. Raising children is the hard part.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Do you think it is fair to bring a child into the world without a father? Especially when there are plenty of children in the world in foster care?
As I recall, studies have consistently concluded that lesbians raise significantly happier and healthier children than other parental cohorts.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
If porn teaches us anything, it's that a lesbian couple will inevitably invite a man into their little arrangement at the slightest excuse, and thus procreation can occur. So at least one half of the gay couples don't even have to adopt.
But it's usually the pizza delivery guy. Do you really think that the pizza delivery guy genes should be getting passed on to lesbians' offspring all over North America?
If porn teaches us anything, it's that a lesbian couple will inevitably invite a man into their little arrangement at the slightest excuse, and thus procreation can occur. So at least one half of the gay couples don't even have to adopt.
Do you think it is fair to bring a child into the world without a father? Especially when there are plenty of children in the world in foster care?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Divorce is far too easy to get and it does mean people do take marriage far less seriously. It's unfortunate that there's no support to make it more difficult to get.
Man this one made me laugh. So you'd rather have a child raised by an alcoholic, physically and mentally abusive father than by two lesbian mothers? But its ok because its a father in the kids life?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Do you think it is fair to bring a child into the world without a father? Especially when there are plenty of children in the world in foster care?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Divorce is far too easy to get and it does mean people do take marriage far less seriously. It's unfortunate that there's no support to make it more difficult to get.
What if they have two fathers? Also, sex has no bearing on the aptitude of a parent. Two moms beats one mom and a deadbeat dad or vice versa
So ban divorce and gay marriage and we are better for it in your opinion?
Man this one made me laugh. So you'd rather have a child raised by an alcoholic, physically and mentally abusive father than by two lesbian mothers? But its ok because its a father in the kids life?
What a ridiculous argument. Lesbians can't be alcoholics or abusive but all fathers are?
Do you think it is fair to bring a child into the world without a father? Especially when there are plenty of children in the world in foster care?
I've known people who have grown up with awful, destructive fathers, and people who have grown up in loving single-parent families. It isn't a matter of how many parents or what gender the parents are, it's about the care taken while raising the child. Period. I can list at least 15 heterosexual couples I know personally who have children that absolutely should not be raising children. I know gay couples who do a fabulous job of raising children.
Edit: with regards to the "too many children in foster care" you also gave a fabulous argument in favor of legalized abortion and socialized birth control.
Quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Divorce is far too easy to get and it does mean people do take marriage far less seriously. It's unfortunate that there's no support to make it more difficult to get.
But again, answer my question. If it's about the sanctity of marriage, why isn't there support to stop divorces?
Because many of the people who are so adamantly opposed to gay marriage are divorced one or more times themselves. Because making divorces harder to get would be infringing on their rights, and that can't possibly happen. Straight, wealthy, white men get to have all the rights in the world, but when anyone else expects them, it's debated for ages before anything actually happens.
Again, if it's about the sanctity of marriages, why isn't anyone going to Las Vegas to protest the quickie 24 hour wedding chapels? Because a marriage that starts while drunk and then quickly ends in a divorce isn't an affront to the "sanctity" of marriage, but a loving gay couple wanting to share their life together is? Kim Kardashian's farce of a marriage isn't devaluing the institution? No one protested outside of her house when she got married to much fanfare and then got divorced a few short months later.
It is not about the sanctity of marriage, it's about controlling a minority.
Last edited by wittynickname; 08-02-2012 at 05:11 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
