 | | Re: At last, some family-values legislation I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) -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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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!
|
|
(...) 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)
|
