"You're making the claim that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals without facts (and I'm going to assume you're doing so because of religious beliefs)."

I'm not religious IWP, I'm just smart. There is no way, I mean no freaking way, my wife's father and his partner could have raised my wife through puberty better than a strong heterosexual couple (and I love her father, heck I even kissed him on the lips Michael Scott style from The Office joking one weekend) - my wife's bond with her mother is unspeakable, it is something two dudes can't do. She turned out well but again the BEST situation would have been a stable male/female couple. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way but it can, and in U.S. common law adoption is in the BEST interested of the child.

Yea the debates will decide the election, Too bad they wont let the other candidate who will be on all 50 states ballot in the debates. I know Johnson wouldn't win but it would be nice for Americans to really see how these two clowns Obama and Romney are nothing more than the same crap that has led this country to the point we are at.

I Wear Pants;1258467 wrote:Back to the RNC, like Iggy I anticipate that moment during the debates and think it'll be pretty important for the election to see how Mitt responds.

I would agree 100%

Manhattan Buckeye;1258469 wrote:"You're making the claim that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals without facts (and I'm going to assume you're doing so because of religious beliefs)."

I'm not religious IWP, I'm just smart. There is no way, I mean no freaking way, my wife's father and his partner could have raised my wife through puberty better than a strong heterosexual couple (and I love her father, heck I even kissed him on the lips Michael Scott style from The Office joking one weekend) - my wife's bond with her mother is unspeakable, it is something two dudes can't do. She turned out well but again the BEST situation would have been a stable male/female couple. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way but it can, and in U.S. common law adoption is in the BEST interested of the child.

That would be your opinion...and it would be wrong

Manhattan Buckeye;1258469 wrote:"You're making the claim that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals without facts (and I'm going to assume you're doing so because of religious beliefs)."

I'm not religious IWP, I'm just smart. There is no way, I mean no freaking way, my wife's father and his partner could have raised my wife through puberty better than a strong heterosexual couple (and I love her father, heck I even kissed him on the lips Michael Scott style from The Office joking one weekend) - my wife's bond with her mother is unspeakable, it is something two dudes can't do. She turned out well but again the BEST situation would have been a stable male/female couple. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way but it can, and in U.S. common law adoption is in the BEST interested of the child.

Says he's smart.....

Backs up his opinion on a policy issue that effects millions of people with what can be at best considered an anecdote.

I won't even bother finding the relevant facts and studies because you've already dismissed them as coming from people with "agendas". Which is pretty damned convenient.

pmoney25;1258471 wrote:Yea the debates will decide the election, Too bad they wont let the other candidate who will be on all 50 states ballot in the debates. I know Johnson wouldn't win but it would be nice for Americans to really see how these two clowns Obama and Romney are nothing more than the same crap that has led this country to the point we are at.

That would you know, make them look bad. Can't have that. Same reason Ron Paul can't talk at the convention even though he won the amount of states necessary.

pmoney25;1258461 wrote:I am no donk and I think what you are saying is crazy honestly. Kids need loving parents and parents who will provide. What proof do you have that kids raised by great gay parents are any worse off than kids who are raised by two great hetero parents? I'm just curious as to your evidence.

Well I'm glad to hear that, I'm just curious to your point since it doesn't remotely address mine. I'll keep it simple:

1) Loving parents are needed, regardless of what they do in the bedroom (we should all agree on that)

2) Male/Female parents provide the best environment because it provides a diverse parental environment for our children (apparently this is evil, despite centuries of human evolution and procreation)

3) When adoption is considered, pursuant to (2) we should put children in the best environment.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with two guys adopting a child, I think it is better to have a stable male and female influence, and I'm the bad guy? Really?

I Wear Pants;1258477 wrote:Says he's smart.....

Backs up his opinion on a policy issue that effects millions of people with what can be at best considered an anecdote.

I won't even bother finding the relevant facts and studies because you've already dismissed them as coming from people with "agendas". Which is pretty damned convenient.

Millions of people? What the hell are you talking about? This wasn't even a policy issue until a few years ago. There is no issue. There is no shortage of adoptive parents for American children. We (well we lived) in the wealthiest country in the world, if you don't like my "anecdotal" (but honest) posts, look for yourself.

All kinds of politicos,indies,and even Republicans are ripping Mitt apart

Manhattan Buckeye;1258482 wrote:Millions of people? What the hell are you talking about? This wasn't even a policy issue until a few years ago. There is no issue. There is no shortage of adoptive parents for American children. We (well we lived) in the wealthiest country in the world, if you don't like my "anecdotal" (but honest) posts, look for yourself.

There are millions of gay people. Your envisioned policy effects them.

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage of Same-Sex Couples Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF

Should I continue?

Millions of gays that want to adopt?

If anything the gay friends I have want to go to circuit parties and party it up - more power to them. They don't want the responsibility of a child, understandable. To the extent they do, they should be mindful that the presence of female parent is important. Most of them agree with me.

By the way, it is affects.

I think you guys are being a little overly dismissive of Manhattan Buckeye's point.

Suppose a baby had full cognitive awareness when he was going to be adopted. He/She gets to choose between two sets of parents

1. Two Females, both with high incomes and Ph.D's in child development who would be great parents

2. A male and a female, both with high incomes and Ph.D's in child development who would be great parents.

I'm biased because I didn't have homosexual parents but I imagine if those are my only two choices, I probably go with number 2. If we assume that most children would choose this if it were possible for them to make this choice and there is an overwhelming number of qualified male/female couples looking to adopt, then perhaps "gay adoption" shouldn't be a realistic option.

I don't think it's that outrageous of an argument.

It's not an argument that straight parents are by definition better or preferable...it's just the idea that the child might reasonably have the preference if he/she were capable of having preferences.

(That's not to say that a homosexual couldn't agree to conceive children of his/her own with a willing and able partner of the opposite sex).

Has offered ONE single positive thing he will do as President....all he has done is TRY to tear down the President.

This isn't a stump Mitt....this speech is about what YOU will do

I counted 5 things....maybe you should read the transcript. As for tearing down the president......all he did was state facts.

On the other hand, Clint is 86 and did not use a teleprompter.

Condi Rice did not use a teleprompter either. it's kind of a shame where we have become so used to teleprompter smooth speeches, that when someone stutters or ad libs, it is held against them as 'sub par'.
Personally, I like to hear Eastwood speak off the cuff. I like listening to Tony Bennett speak too. You can learn alot from octogenarians and their insights and perspective. Sure, maybe they don't have the vitality they had in their youth and some of their physical abilities have begun to fail, but you certainly don't need to shutter them up. That the Republicans would put an 86 year old out there and let him do a 'non standard' speech/skit speaks to the essence of the party which is all about empowerment of the individual.

What's weird is Clint holds some views that are demonized within the currently hijacked Republican party (gays are evil, etc).

I would not expect you to get it anymore that the analyst on MSNBC who was so flustered after Eastwood was done all she could do was stammer about it being 'weird'. She reminded me of the girl robots in the Austin powers movie where they are so confused their heads are literally spinning.
Unlike the dems and the libs who are so married to the party line that to stray from the politically correct script is to invoke immediate censure, Republicans are individuals...not automatons. They can accept/reject pieces parts and still support the whole.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258489 wrote:Millions of gays that want to adopt?

If anything the gay friends I have want to go to circuit parties and party it up - more power to them. They don't want the responsibility of a child, understandable. To the extent they do, they should be mindful that the presence of female parent is important. Most of them agree with me.

By the way, it is affects.

Indeed it is affects. It's also 12:40 at night/morning depending on how you want to call it.

And I said there's millions of gays. I have no idea how many of them want to adopt but your idea of our policy affects all homosexuals just as a policy saying no heterosexuals could adopt or get married would affect all heterosexuals.

I also added some links to the last one. You know, facts and shit. Seems preferable than to keep parlaying stories of our gay friends in an attempt to give legitimacy to our opinions on the subject.

Hits, I find it weird when people choose to give their voice to people who so loudly proclaim things they disdain. I would not speak publicly at the DNC in support of Obama if I was asked because I doubt they would let me clarify where I feel he is wrong. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant when I said I found it weird.

And all I said about Clint is that I thought it was weird in regards to what he's said are his opinions on certain things. I think the guy is an intelligent, talented, and respectable person. If anyone seriously gives an 86 year old grief because he wasn't perfectly smooth in the delivery of his speech they're being an asshole.

jmog;1257895 wrote:Obama also said that Obamacare would lower the deficit.

If Obama's budget was so good please explain why not even 1 single democrat in the Senate voted FOR it? Zero votes.

His budget got zero votes because it had a raise in marginal rates which would have been a tough vote to make when the other chamber is voting on ridiculous budgets projecting 2% unemployment and claims that it is "revenue neutral" without a specification on it. It would have been a politically bad move in a ridiculous political environment wherein nothing productive was actually accomplished. Meanwhile, you're assuming that the democrats are not also idiots who are concerned about the deficit when they should have been worried about disastrously high unemployment.

^^^ This.

We have too many people thinking like Greece on both sides of the aisle and almost no one thinking like Iceland.

I Wear Pants;1258494 wrote:Indeed it is affects. It's also 12:40 at night/morning depending on how you want to call it.

And I said there's millions of gays. I have no idea how many of them want to adopt but your idea of our policy affects all homosexuals just as a policy saying no heterosexuals could adopt or get married would affect all heterosexuals.

I also added some links to the last one. You know, facts and ****. Seems preferable than to keep parlaying stories of our gay friends in an attempt to give legitimacy to our opinions on the subject.

Understood, it is midnight your time (lunch for me - sushi and dumplings!). I don't have the time to read the links but will if I get a chance. I don't disrespect your opinion I just don't understand the genesis of it. I mean what child if they had their preferences wouldn't want to be raised by a father and mother? Certainly we have situations that happen, they happen - but people deal with it. If we can control a situation (and adoption is heavily regulated and controlled), why not provide the best? At any rate hope you have a good night, I've got an afternoon of due diligence ahead of me.

Ty Webb;1258066 wrote:You people need to get it through your heads.....unless something catostrophic happens between now and October the polls aren't going to change much.


This will be the first time in a very long time the debates really matter

You're being too optimistic. Obama has lost nearly all white males and is losing even more. He'll lose women if Ann Romney's appeal grows and Paul Ryan and his hot wife get on magazine covers. He's a terrible salesman of both the stimulus and the affordable care act which were beneficial to most americans.

He's in deep shit and all Romney needs to say is the "We built that" nonsense over and over.

gut;1257890 wrote:LMAO. Source? At what point do you stop listening to what Obama says and start looking at the record of what he's done? $5-6T in new debt. I don't care what partisan or biased fuzzy math he tries to bring to the table, or I guess it seems you only get concerned about "lies" coming from one side. LMFAO, Obama is going to "cut $4T from debt", as oppsoed to LOWER growth in spending? The guy hasn't come close to even $500B from a balanced budget, and you think he's going to LOWER debt?!?!?!?!? C'mon, I thought you were smarter than that. It would be a minor miracle if another 4 years of Obama doesn't add another $3T+ in debt.

This is what I know: Obama will have 24-25% of GDP spending, an impossible amount to sustain. Ryan/Romney are targeting 20%, which still likely leaves a gap. Like I said, I choose not to bleed out before help arrives.

No need to obsfuscate, spin or deceive. It's that simple. Obama is a failure that has to go. That simple.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, $4 trillion of projected debt. None of these proposals by anyone is going to be anywhere close to being actually paying down the debt. You know this though. He's still going to be adding more debt but not as much as is projected in both the Romney and Ryan plans when they cut marginal rates without being able to make it up through base broadening (please don't reply with the Feldstein op-ed...it's been excoriated) and increase defense spending but their plans "still likely leave a gap" no biggie though cus they coo and not empty suits.

But like you say...doesn't matter if Romney and Ryan's plans violate your advocated governing principles even worse. BHO just sucks that much.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258498 wrote:Understood, it is midnight your time (lunch for me - sushi and dumplings!). I don't have the time to read the links but will if I get a chance. I don't disrespect your opinion I just don't understand the genesis of it. I mean what child if they had their preferences wouldn't want to be raised by a father and mother? Certainly we have situations that happen, they happen - but people deal with it. If we can control a situation (and adoption is heavily regulated and controlled), why not provide the best? At any rate hope you have a good night, I've got an afternoon of due diligence ahead of me.

Sounds awesome.

As for the second bolded part: What child would choose to have a circumcision or to do any number of other things kids do/are made to? Doesn't seem like a good metric.

The genesis of what I feel (that people deserve equal rights in regard to marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, etc, etc) is that I have seen neither in the form of academic research nor in the form of my real life experience that indicates that gay people are different (in general) in any regard from homosexual people other than who they choose to share their beds with. That's it. For every partying gay couple that you can find that you may feel would hypothetically be bad parent choices I'd bet I can find a hundred actually shitty heterosexual parents. Probably even close to that if I narrowed it down to shitty heterosexual adoptive parents.

You don't need a "strong male/father" and a "strong female/mother" figure to have a kid turn out well. You need parents (we're talking about two here, one is a different discussion) that love and support a kid and are intelligent enough to care for a child in the correct manner. None of those things has anything to do with gender or gender identities.

BoatShoes;1258499 wrote:You're being too optimistic. Obama has lost nearly all white males and is losing even more. He'll lose women if Ann Romney's appeal grows and Paul Ryan and his hot wife get on magazine covers. He's a terrible salesman of both the stimulus and the affordable care act which were beneficial to most americans.

He's in deep **** and all Romney needs to say is the "We built that" nonsense over and over.

I can quote, at the American Club!

I'll put this in more direct quotes (to piss off 2kool4skool):

" Obama has lost nearly all white males"

and why not other groups, we're all suffering. We have two houses in the states that's market values continue to fall, yet we pay the same real estate taxes (renting relieves a little, but not full coverage on a tax/mortgage perspective), interest rates in savings are crap (thanks Bernanke) and the jobs are where? We'd like to move back but aside from Texas (nothing against it) no part of the U.S. is thriving. Shouldn't this affect all Americans?

HitsRus;1258493 wrote:speaks to the essence of the party which is all about empowerment of the individual.

As you put out a ticket of two guys who've both ridden taxpayer rents and daddy's coattails their whole lives :laugh:

Manhattan, go look at the Romney website and tell me what it says about his housing plans. You'll be there a while because he doesn't have any.

And your assertion that no part of the US is thriving aside from Texas is false. There are plenty of places doing well (might not be as large as an entire state but, well you get the point).

That's not to say everything is rosy. It's just not the apocalypse either.

"What child would choose to have a circumcision or to do any number of other things kids do/are made to?"

Me. My wife won't sleep with an uncut dude. Smegma. I've never known a circumcised guy that regretted it, more to your point:


"You don't need a "strong male/father" and a "strong female/mother" figure to have a kid turn out well"

I agree, and I apologize if I'm repeating the point, which I am, but in adoption it is about the BEST, not just well, not turning out well, not being well it is about the BEST. It is a situation which can be controlled (and the government does control), and as long as we have female/male parents that are available it is the BEST situation. That doesn't mean other families are wrong or bad, it just isn't the BEST, nothing wrong with that.