Maine's referendum on gay marriage law is too close to call

ZenBirdist wrote:

<quoted text>Interesting. I wonder if that survey reflected the competetiveness of today's successful woman. Sharing her secrets of success and demanding more of her less ambitious sisters would introduce more competition for her as a woman in a man's world. Just a thought.

I think it's more a reflection of our feel good at any cost times. Affirmation is cheap, easy, and feels great. Confrontation is hard. We've also had "Who's to say what's right and wrong?" drilled so deep into our heads since the 60's that we've lost track of the simple fact that we have a pretty good sense of right and wrong and a lot of dysfunctional people would benefit from hearing it (and in turn, we'd all benefit from them hearing it).

Just like gay "marriage". Ain't it great: love, love, love. No it isn't, it's: family, family, family. We know the structures and behaviors that are most likely to lead to success (or at least being able to take care of yourself one day). We need to highlight them, share them, and at times even, insist on them. A world where everything is a "family" and everything is "marriage" blurs these words out of having much meaning at all and along with them, the survival of important social models that are in all of our best interests.

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confusing apples and oranges in order to spread The Big Lie, not just about people that don't adhere to your sick hyper conservative catholic vision of the world, but also about the social order and how it applies to your proselyte's screwed up understanding of religion. Thank God for the 1st Amendment or we'd be making laws based on religion that we'd have to strike down... like a lot of the so called "sins" you religious asses like to list, as above.

You are thanking God and then turn around and say his teachings makes him a religious ass. So the way I read your post, you are thanking a religious ass for being a religious ass. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Some day, you can thank this religious ass in person when you stand before him on judgment day.

**** was meant to read A S S

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
All good points... In sum, over half of the women supported the lifestyles of the failing group, yet less than 10% of them actually had the same behaviors as the failing group. Classic do what I do and not what I say. We think we're being nice or compassionate or nonjudgmental, but the nasty truth is that we're depriving people of important cues, hints, and models of successful choices, all of which are really needed. Marriage is one of these.

Thank you. This is where a link would be SO helpful -- not because I think you're a liar, but I would like to read it myself. I speculate that the "successful" women were simply being accepting or non-judgemental of the "unsuccessful" women. Perhaps as in, "That's OK for YOU -- but I wouldn't go there." Perhaps, as you say, they simply weren't willing to "get on a soapbox" and be seen as lecturing to their less successful sisters.

I think you got confused when you said "Classic do what I do and not what I say." Wouldn't the more traditional "Do as I say, not as I do" fit better? Weren't the successful women ALREADY being role models, giving cues and hints? Maybe their less successful sisters need to be told, "This is a HINT. That is a CUE," lest they not recognize them as such. Otherwise, lacking the context of Success, they might not realize what is available to them.

Aaarrgh, for lack of a link! I share your frustration -- I have read MANY great tidbits over the years, and when I want to use them here, I cannot remember where I read them, let alone provide a link. I ask folk to basically trust me -- which darn few do. For good reason.

Peter wrote:

<quoted text> ...
Just like gay "marriage". Ain't it great: love, love, love. No it isn't, it's: family, family, family. We know the structures and behaviors that are most likely to lead to success (or at least being able to take care of yourself one day). We need to highlight them, share them, and at times even, insist on them. A world where everything is a "family" and everything is "marriage" blurs these words out of having much meaning at all and along with them, the survival of important social models that are in all of our best interests.

Please note that "marriage" and "family" are NOT synonyms. The former is a subset of the latter.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
You are thanking God and then turn around and say his teachings makes him a religious ****. So the way I read your post, you are thanking a religious **** for being a religious ****. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Some day, you can thank this religious **** in person when you stand before him on judgment day.

Oh Thomas, you have yourself whipped up into quite the religious frenzy, more appropriate for those charismatic nuts than for such a staid catholic as yourself. I don't pretend to impose a religious viewpoint on any of this. We could just as well point to the cat box and say "Thank Turd!" So let's all thank Turd that we have separation of church and state so lunatics like yourself, Thomas, don't set policy for sensible people. As far as judgement day, I'll take whichever option that doesn't have the self-righteous, such as yourself.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you. This is where a link would be SO helpful -- not because I think you're a liar, but I would like to read it myself. I speculate that the "successful" women were simply being accepting or non-judgemental of the "unsuccessful" women. Perhaps as in, "That's OK for YOU -- but I wouldn't go there." Perhaps, as you say, they simply weren't willing to "get on a soapbox" and be seen as lecturing to their less successful sisters.
I think you got confused when you said "Classic do what I do and not what I say." Wouldn't the more traditional "Do as I say, not as I do" fit better? Weren't the successful women ALREADY being role models, giving cues and hints? Maybe their less successful sisters need to be told, "This is a HINT. That is a CUE," lest they not recognize them as such. Otherwise, lacking the context of Success, they might not realize what is available to them.
Aaarrgh, for lack of a link! I share your frustration -- I have read MANY great tidbits over the years, and when I want to use them here, I cannot remember where I read them, let alone provide a link. I ask folk to basically trust me -- which darn few do. For good reason.

Yes, it is a form of "do what I say, not as I do", but for liberal women, they do the opposite. One is way better off observing what they do and ignoring what they say. That's the point. We keep stripping away indicators of what we know works. Another example in the culture. I watched a 10PM news story about the new Call of Duty game and people lining up for a midnight sale. In line was a 3 or 4 year old, sure with parents, but a 3 or 4 year old nonetheless. The reporter was all smiles and even acknowledged the kid, still, with smiles. That's a blown chance at a cue. The reporter should've said something like "So, lots of people lined up here, even a 4 year old as inappropriate as that is, hoping to get this new game, now back to you in the studio."

Cues and hints matter, yet we've scrubbed the culture of all these indicators of how to have a successful life. Clarity about marriage matters too, but that's about to receive the scrub down into meaninglessness as well if the gays have their way, no pun intended.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Please note that "marriage" and "family" are NOT synonyms. The former is a subset of the latter.

Madaman, I believe the latter is the subset of the former. Traditionally, first comes marriage and then family.

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh Thomas, you have yourself whipped up into quite the religious frenzy, more appropriate for those charismatic nuts than for such a staid catholic as yourself. I don't pretend to impose a religious viewpoint on any of this. We could just as well point to the cat box and say "Thank ****!" So let's all thank **** that we have separation of church and state so lunatics like yourself, Thomas, don't set policy for sensible people. As far as judgement day, I'll take whichever option that doesn't have the self-righteous, such as yourself.

No option, your life choices will seal your eternity.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
Madaman, I believe the latter is the subset of the former. Traditionally, first comes marriage and then family.

I see your point -- we could engage in a newer version of the chicken or the egg coming first.

Perhaps another way to interpret the situation is in temporality. While a family may have its origin in Marriage, the Family remains even if the originating marriage ends for any reason. War widows can remarry, and their already-born children have a new father. As your lengthy cut above shows, there are many permutations of family, some of which are not marital (e.g., adult children caring for aging parents in their home). Once initiated, a family carries on regardless of marital status of its participants.

Of course, given your Christian a priori view of the world, Marriage would come first. I can agree, stipulating that there is more to Family than Marriage.

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
... That's a blown chance at a cue. The reporter should've said something like "So, lots of people lined up here, even a 4 year old as inappropriate as that is, hoping to get this new game, now back to you in the studio."
Cues and hints matter, yet we've scrubbed the culture of all these indicators of how to have a successful life. Clarity about marriage matters too, but that's about to receive the scrub down into meaninglessness as well if the gays have their way, no pun intended.

Sounds like you are advocating a return to a Victorian-era sort of judging and assessing others -- a self-righteous sniffing and sneering at those of lesser moral character than thou.

That reporter had no business commenting on that family's activities, as you seem to say s/he should have. You don't know what preceded that late-night appearance to get a game -- maybe Baby Jessie was put to bed early in order to get up and go late at night.

Are you saying that we have a Responsibility to give the cues you say are missing? That those parents should not have taken their child out late -- just to NOT give a "bad cue?" That if the game was a violent one, perhaps they should not be seen in line to purchase it? I am curious just what you are saying here, Peter.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
You are thanking God and then turn around and say his teachings makes him a religious ass. So the way I read your post, you are thanking a religious ass for being a religious ass. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Some day, you can thank this religious ass in person when you stand before him on judgment day.

You can believe in a higher power and not be religious.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds like you are advocating a return to a Victorian-era sort of judging and assessing others -- a self-righteous sniffing and sneering at those of lesser moral character than thou.
That reporter had no business commenting on that family's activities, as you seem to say s/he should have. You don't know what preceded that late-night appearance to get a game -- maybe Baby Jessie was put to bed early in order to get up and go late at night.
Are you saying that we have a Responsibility to give the cues you say are missing? That those parents should not have taken their child out late -- just to NOT give a "bad cue?" That if the game was a violent one, perhaps they should not be seen in line to purchase it? I am curious just what you are saying here, Peter.

But judgement free is a disaster. Victorian? Hardly, pre-60's is all it would take. Again, reserving our judgement, commentary, or whatever you want to call it, does damage to those from whom we reserve it. We understand what it takes to have a functional satisfactory life. Withholding this information by some societal-wide judgement gag order ultimately is doing everyone harm.

People that are failing need to hear more from those of us that aren't. One way that's done is by maintaining institutions like marriage and family. It's also done by not reserving comment when you see something that's obviously amiss. People should get a lot more comfortable openly criticizing lifestyle choices that they know don't work, including the reporter.

Maybe it can be clearer if I pull a current liberal example. Liberals won't say ANYTHING about single moms. But they WILL say a lot about diversity. Diversity behavior cues are everywhere, even on TV and radio as "public service" ads. The amount dedicated to pregnancy, for example, and the like is relatively tiny, by my observation. Shouldn't judgement free apply to this diversity coaching as well?

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
No option, your life choices will seal your eternity.

"Judge not", Thomas, "lest ye be judged yourself".

But of what "life choices" are you speaking? Calling out haters on their hatred?

Peter wrote:

<quoted text>
But judgement free is a disaster. Victorian? Hardly, pre-60's is all it would take. Again, reserving our judgement, commentary, or whatever you want to call it, does damage to those from whom we reserve it. We understand what it takes to have a functional satisfactory life. Withholding this information by some societal-wide judgement gag order ultimately is doing everyone harm.
People that are failing need to hear more from those of us that aren't. One way that's done is by maintaining institutions like marriage and family. It's also done by not reserving comment when you see something that's obviously amiss. People should get a lot more comfortable openly criticizing lifestyle choices that they know don't work, including the reporter.
Maybe it can be clearer if I pull a current liberal example. Liberals won't say ANYTHING about single moms. But they WILL say a lot about diversity. Diversity behavior cues are everywhere, even on TV and radio as "public service" ads. The amount dedicated to pregnancy, for example, and the like is relatively tiny, by my observation. Shouldn't judgement free apply to this diversity coaching as well?

Thank you so much for engaging in this totally civil discussion -- this is why I list you in the small group of thoughtful conservatives with whom actual discourse is possible. I do not take you for granted!

I realize you are earnestly attempting a meaningful comparison when you compare single moms to diversity issues, but I don't think the comparison holds. Single moms are the unfortunate result of failed relationships, whereas diversity is a proactive approach to fend off discrimination -- totally different animals here, since discrimination is in fact illegal.

I completely agree that whole nuclear families are the best vehicle in which to raise healthy & well-adjusted children -- but as a single father myself I also know that sometimes that just is not possible. While I did in fact just garner a great stepmom for the kids -- it is a little late. My daughter is 20 and has left the nest, and my sons are 17 -- rapidly approaching adulthood themselves. It would have been better to have installed her 12 years ago, when I obtained custody -- but that's not how Life went.

We may agree that anyone who glorifies single parenting, particularly moms, are bringing that disgusting sentiment, "A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle" to the arena of raising children -- TOTALLY & WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE!

I am not certain that we could get any further off-topic than this, but at least it is interesting.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
No option, your life choices will seal your eternity.

Thump that baby a bit harder will ya?

Passage and verse please!

One "man" and one "woman" ??

How many wives did Lot have, or any of the other greybeards outta the Big Black Book?

It should come with a warning label!

"Note: Too many contradictions to count are contained herein"

And please don't even get me started on how the Vatican has changed book and passage over the millennia, to suit their little world scheme!

Obama Faith Advisor Seeks to Dismantle "Heteronormative" Fatherhood


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/0905...

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com )- A member of Obama's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships advisory board has stated that one of the main challenges in promoting "responsible fatherhood" in America will be to dismantle a perception that fatherhood is "heteronormative" - i.e., that heterosexuality is the norm.

In addition to his role on Obama's faith advisory board, Knox is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

"Responsible fatherhood offers us an immense opportunity to speak to a real need in the country," Knox said in a May 11 PBS interview. "It'll be challenging to do that in a way ... not to sort of hold a heteronormative view of fatherhood up as the only model."

Knox claimed that 25% of gay male couples in America "are raising children - their own and other people's."

"Challenges will be all of us getting to know what fatherhood means for us and how to talk about it in a way that is as inclusive as possible, and as empowering as possible for all fathers," he said. Knox mentioned that he has suggested that the advisory council investigate "mentoring processes" that have been developed to help homosexual men raising children.

"The president has been very clear with us that he expects us to get along and to work together on these several initiatives, and I think it will be relatively easy to do," he later added.(To watch the PBS video of Knox's remarks: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blo... ...)

Last week, several leading American Catholics, including House Republican Leader John Boehner, Catholic League President Bill Donohue, American Life League's Judie Brown, and members of the Family Research Council issued a letter to Obama urging Knox's ouster from the advisory group. In addition to his numerous positions that run directly contrary to traditional moral values, Knox has on several occasions severely criticized the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Knox has said he stands by previous comments calling Pope Benedict XVI "morally reprehensible" for not supporting the use of condoms. An open homosexual, Knox called a Cheyenne, WY bishop "immoral and insulting to Jesus" for instructing that an activist lesbian couple not receive Communion.

He also labeled the Catholic fraternal group, the Knights of Columbus, "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression" for supporting Proposition 8, California's true marriage amendment.





According to dictionary.com :

No results found for "heteronormative"

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for making my point. There are no other groups demanding the legalization of sibling marriages, parent-child, adult-child, nor adult-pet. None. Only the opponents of gay marriage continue to raise this straw point. It is obviously a bogus point if only the opponents raise it to have an easy target to argue against.
The additional material is interesting, but totally off-point. It seems as if you couldn't simply say something like, "Gosh, Madaman -- you were right. NO ONE is advocating these other bizarre marital combinations, so it is unlikely that they will be under serious discussion when legislating some changes." You could admit to that, without altering your fundamental beliefs and continuing to oppose same-sex marriage. You would simply have had the courage to admit that one aspect of your argument is bogus.

Ah, but Madaman, I don't give up this easily. I heard it or read it and I will again come across it. So until then, I admit I have not found any thing to support my statements but this topic will not be going away so I will have more opportunities to restate. If I truly believe that my argument was bogus, I would not have posted it, having courage to admit a bogus argument is not acceptable as I never would intentionally do this. If we cannot speak the truth, why speak at all.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Aaarrgh, for lack of a link! I share your frustration -- I have read MANY great tidbits over the years, and when I want to use them here, I cannot remember where I read them, let alone provide a link. I ask folk to basically trust me -- which darn few do. For good reason.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I seemed to share this frustration.

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
Thomas, don't set policy for sensible people.

So if people like me do not set policy, then people like you will. Sad.