 | | At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (URL) Good luck, Mr. Hagan!> Hagan admitted that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims. Just as `Hood had no scientific evidence'' to back his assertion that having gay parents was detrimental to children, Hagan said. Dave! (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Mr. Hagen shouldn't quit his day job at the public teet for a career in comedy. He might have a promising career as a professional hypocrite, however. Hagen equates being a republican to being gay. Certainly one can change their party on a (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) In that case, maybe he needs to join the GOP. (...) Not at all. He equates the utter lack of supporting data for Hood's bogus (though seriously-intended) legislation with the utter lack of supporting data for Hagen's own bogus (and (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) All right; take it easy. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around for everyone... (...) This has nothing to do with any specious "supporting data" argument. (...) You can't have your cake, eat it, and argue out both sides of your mouth. Take (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Does it say anything about the rights of Republican voters? :) (...) So you disagree with Hood's proposal? I guess I was assuming you were agreeing, but that is admittedly pretty presumptious of me. (...) I don't think gay marriage is the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not informed on the issue enough to know why the Ohio legislature is taking this radical stance on gay adoption. Off hand it sounds extreme. So does amending the Constitution defining marriage, but I guess when people are pushed to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | | (...) -snip- (...) These two paragraphs put together seem to imply that you do have some against gays adopting - that gay parents are less fit to raise children than straight parents. That's "harsh reality" tho. But then we're already dealing harsh (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) "Less fit"? Only in the sense that given two couples, one gay and one straight, it is better for a child to be adopted by the straight couple. I'm not advocating never letting gays adopt. I'm asserting that one relationship is superior to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I guess I'd agree, although as you said elsewhere, I think that sexual orientation of the parent is as much of a factor in whether they'll be good parents as, say, a parent's level of strictness. It chanages things, certainly, but I would (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Well, if he had picked something slightly more equivalent, like "personality type X" or "brown eyes" or "under 5 feet tall", it wouldn't quite get the same type of media attention he's looking for. But I think his point still stands-- IE that (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Ahh, it's all about media attention. I think that you are onto something, Dave! (not to be confused with Dave!!) (...) Barring homosexuals is extreme. But I do contend that there is a definite hierarchy when selecting prospective parents. 1M1F (...) (19 years ago, 28-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) **snip** (...) DaveE's (URL) comments> made me realize a few other weaknesses in this argument. First, you're apparently equating homosexuality with being a centenarian or a polygamist, at least to the extent that you think that Hagen is (...) (19 years ago, 27-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
