+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: A followup to the right to have children thread

  1. #51
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    But that is all I ever posted. My opinion, clearly stated, and inviting comments on it. Nowhere did I advocate taking anyone's children away from them. Nowhere did I post anything other than MY opinion. And I'll repeat it, with emphasis applied for those who apparently can't read for comprehension:
    Bullshit. Your "opinion" is that the LAW should be changed. That's telling other people how to live.

    Let's try that again, bolding mine this time:
    I feel that part of the requirement for having children is the ability to provide a stable home environment with both parents pulling their share of the load. The child should come first.

    With that in mind, should divorce laws be changed to make it as hard as possible to get a divorce once a child enters the picture (natural or adopted)? It seems to me that there is an attitude of "cut and run once it gets difficult" in our society. Why should we enable that attitude?

    I believe that divorce laws should be changed so that divorces where kids are involved are granted easily only in cases where one parent is abusive, a criminal or a drunk/addict. In all other cases, the one filing FOR divorce should be required to pay the other spouse 50% of all earnings until the youngest child turns 18, and should not be allowed to remarry until the youngest child turns 18. In the exception cases as listed, the one filed ON has to make the payments and is prohibited from remarrying.

    Harsh? Probably. But if you make the decision to bring a child into the world, you shouldn't be allowed to duck out on your responsibility toward that child and toward the other parent. It ain't all about you anymore.

    Thoughts?
    My thoughts are that you should keep your eyes on your own plate and stop suggesting we legislate how others live, especially as you can't find one iota of support for your opinions re: harm to children not being raised in a two biological parent heterosexual household.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    But that is all I ever posted. My opinion, clearly stated, and inviting comments on it. Nowhere did I advocate taking anyone's children away from them. Nowhere did I post anything other than MY opinion. And I'll repeat it, with emphasis applied for those who apparently can't read for comprehension:

    For those screaming for an apology from me, the line to apologize TO me for all that crap starts right over there.
    So, in other words, the only "support" you can come up with for your ideas is a (purely opinion) essay from James Dobson (the same dude who says fathers should be sure to sure to shower with their preteen sons, in order to prevent their sons from becoming gay.)

    That's the literal totality of your argument.

    And now you just want people to accept it because it's "your opinion"? You're basically asking for affirmative action for stupid people. "Of course I can't defend my moronic viewpoint. You should respect it even though I can't offer up anything even resembling a rational argument for it."

    Well, duh, Clothahump. No one expected you to be able to defend something that fucking stupid. The point of this whole exercise wasn't to defend the right of stupid people to believe stupid things. The point was an (obviously futile) attempt to see if you'd reconsider your viewpoints when you discovered you couldn't defend them.

    (Dear everyone else: Duh, I fucking told you this was pointless.)

  3. #53
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    But it's fun to argue! Clothahump, you were saying....

  4. #54
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I wonder how this differs from a UK perspective.

    The maxim that parents should stay together for the kids sake doesn't seem to apply anymore. It would be better to have two parents divorced and living apart who can agree in a reasonable manner than two parents forced to live together whose constant arguing will not be beneficial to the kids growing up.

    If the parents split, then child support gets paid from the person who is not looking after the children to the parent who is looking after the children. In this way, they are least financially taken care of.

    The problem is not that a child needs parents, its that a child needs good parents. Or rather, good role models for them to identify with and grow up respecting.

    As for the gender of them, well for some it doesn't matter, for some it does. For certain cultures in the UK, there is evidence that a lack of a strong male role model is damaging and that a strong female role model is not an acceptable substitute. Please note that it is the role model which is important, not the fact it has to be the father. In many ways it would be much easier if it was the father, which is why partnerships, not necessarily marriage, can be considered beneficial.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  5. #55
    my god, he's full of stars... OneCentStamp's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,993

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I wonder how this differs from a UK perspective.

    The maxim that parents should stay together for the kids sake doesn't seem to apply anymore. It would be better to have two parents divorced and living apart who can agree in a reasonable manner than two parents forced to live together whose constant arguing will not be beneficial to the kids growing up.

    If the parents split, then child support gets paid from the person who is not looking after the children to the parent who is looking after the children. In this way, they are least financially taken care of.

    The problem is not that a child needs parents, its that a child needs good parents. Or rather, good role models for them to identify with and grow up respecting.
    CIAS, this is pretty much the same as you would hear from most Americans, I think.
    "You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."

    find me at Goodreads

  6. #56
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by artifex View post
    The difference being, you think that legislation should be enacted to compel others into living according to YOUR opinions, despite them being scientifically unsupportable. No one else is demanding that.
    Sigh.

    My *opinion*. Not a demand. An opinion. Period. For those that apparently have difficulty comprehending that, let's go back to basics:

    o·pin·ion

      <a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audi...O0129600&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...aker.gif&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;opinion pronunciation&quot; /></a> /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
    –noun1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

    2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


    Opinion, people. Get that through your heads. Stop trying to say that I am demanding this or that or something else; stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

    OPINION - got it? You may agree or disagree; most of you appear to disagree, and that's fine - it's your opinion as opposed to mine. But keep the key words in mind:
    it's an opinion.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  7. #57
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Changing the law so that it requires other people to live as you think they should IS a demand.

  8. #58
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    But keep the key words in mind:
    it's an opinion.
    It's not an 'opinion' when you want to change the laws.

    When you write in a big font, it becomes more truthier.

  9. #59
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    What, exactly, is the opinion? Is it that children are better off raised with two opposite-sex parents? Or is it that there should be some kind of change to the legal code to encourage that? If it's the former, then sure, it's your opinion, which I supposed doesn't need to be justified if you don't want to or can't justify it. If it's the latter, then you really need to come up with some kind of compelling reason other than "it's my opinion."

  10. #60
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    Stop trying to say that I am demanding this or that or something else; stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
    Well, why would we do that when you seem pretty happy to let James Dobson speak for you?

  11. #61
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    It's his opinion, now ya'll just being bitches.

  12. #62
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    it's an opinion.
    Well, some people -- intelligent people, particularly -- try to make sure their opinions are, you know, based on, you know, logic and fact. I'm well aware you're not one of our number, but you did make statements of fact that you (obviously) can't back up. Like this one:
    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump
    Studies indicate that children from a two-parent family are happier overall than children from a single-parent family. They have the formative influence of both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior. This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.
    Now, obviously, you couldn't find any evidence that this was true, so when you said it you were apparently just, you know, lying.

    Not that it's surprising to me that you don't care at all whether your OPINIONS are based on truth or lies, but it seemed worth pointing out.

  13. #63
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Even though I disagree with his opinion, I have to cut Clothahump a little slack here. In my opinion, gays should be allowed to serve in the military openly. Are you all going to jump on me now and say that this is a "demand", and invalid if I can't back it up with statistical evidence that it is a good idea? Probably not. Likewise, Clothahump can and should express whatever opinion he wants to about laws, marriage, homosexuality, etc. If many Mellophanters disagree with him, so much the better -- a little righteous outrage is good for the soul. Just don't scare the guy away, okay? We need more variety around here, even if it it is just to help us articulate our beliefs. And don't get me wrong, I do think that Clothahump is very, very mistaken.

    Speaking of which, I'm sure you've all seen the study that just came out showing that children of lesbian couples are actually better adjusted than their peers, but here it is just in case.

  14. #64
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    Even though I disagree with his opinion, I have to cut Clothahump a little slack here.
    I don't.

    I don't think I somehow benefit from of being told, for the thousandth time, that I'm basically inferior because I'm not straight. It's not like this is some sort of novel, fascinating idea he's sharing with us. It's the same bigotry that any queer person is already very well-acquainted with. He's not covering any new ground here, and the fact that he can't come up with any support for his claims (which, I reiterate, started out as factual claims, not "OPINIONS") is proof-positive that it's just unexamined bigotry from a moron. I'm not seeing how my life, at least, is somehow lacking in bigotry.

    If I had some need to hear someone tell me that queers are inherently inferior to normal folk, I'd go to a Tea Party rally. I don't see any reason to grant special protection for people like that here, of all places, by gently deciding that they deserve a break because it's not their fault they're incapable of defending their stupid, morally repugnant opinions.

  15. #65
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Exy View post
    He's not covering any new ground here, and the fact that he can't come up with any support for his claims (which, I reiterate, started out as factual claims, not "OPINIONS") is proof-positive that it's just unexamined bigotry from a moron.
    Sigh.

    There were no factual claims made, Exy, and you know it. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's words around to what you want to hear, not what was said. And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  16. #66
    Elephant artifex's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model.
    No one ever, ever, ever said that. Seriously. Because that would be stupid. What people did was to challenge the assumption that one male and one female parent was necessary or optimal.

  17. #67
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    Sigh.

    There were no factual claims made, Exy, and you know it. You have a very bad habit of twisting people's words around to what you want to hear, not what was said.
    Your opinions did seem to be stated flatly, as though they were factual claims, Clothahump. But in this case, it doesn't really matter, because factual claims are what you need in order to support the opinion that there ought to be policy changes. So...if you don't have any, it's just your opinion, and that's great and everything, but it's not going to convince anyone.

    And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.
    That's not bigoted or an opinion, but rather a good example of a factual statement (see the difference?) The bigoted part is where you put a value judgment on whether or not it's preferable to have one male and one female parental role model. It's also the part that you haven't supported with anything factual.

  18. #68
    The Apostabulous Inner Stickler's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Collegeville, MN
    Posts
    2,172

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    Studies indicate that children from a two-parent family are happier overall than children from a single-parent family. They have the formative influence of both parents available to serve as role models for appropriate gender behavior. This is why gays cannot do as good a job as a traditional family; they're missing half the equation.
    Bolding mine.

    Is the bolded part the conclusion of a study you can link to and show us? Or is it mere speculation?

    The point is, you started into the discussion from the starting point that a child needs a mother and father figure. The rest of us disagree and have found scientific data to that end. You have an essay by James Dobson. I hope you understand my position.
    I don't think so, therefore I'm probably not.

  19. #69
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    If you were smarter, Clothahump, you'd recognize that the fact that you can't come up with anything to back up your opinion -- and had to retreat from making factual statements to whining that BOO HOO HOO IT'S JUST MY OPINION -- means it's a dumb opinion.

  20. #70
    MOON GIRL FIGHTS CRIME Myrnalene's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,597

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    And please explain to me (and the rest of us) how it is bigoted to say that same-sex couples cannot provide one male and one female parental role model. I'm really interested in seeing how you're going to spin that one.
    You're a funny one to be making demads, since you are still, after multiple requests, (and you can consider this one the what? fifth or sixth?) refusing to answer Tom's question about what proper gender roles even are for men and women, and you have refused to answer MULTIPLE requests by just about everyone in this thread to address WHY you think having these roles modeled is so damn important, and WHY they must be modeled by a parent living in the home.

    Are you even reading this thread?
    everything in nature is sort of gross when you look at it too closely. what is an apple? basically the uterus of a tree - terrifel

  21. #71
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    I just read something.

    "Your Honor, this again brings forward the point that the standard here is whether or not the evidence produced by the plaintiffs is more than just opinion evidence but it actually rises to the level of non-debatable scientific {facts} and ultimately the 11th circuit concluded that that was not, in that case, anyway, that simply couldn't be said with respect to the common sense belief that many, many, many people hold and many researchers hold, that the optimal child rearing parental structure is the traditional intact family."

    This is a statement from Charles Cooper, lawyer for the pro-Prop 8 side in today's closing arguments. Your basic argument has now see the light of day in court, and it sounds just has bad coming out of the mouth of a lawyer.
    Last edited by RabbitMage; 16 Jun 2010 at 04:33 PM.

  22. #72
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Myrnalene View post
    Are you even reading this thread?
    Yes. And I'm pretty much ignoring the wankfest it has degenerated into.
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  23. #73
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Sometimes a chorus of people agreeing isn't a wankfest. Sometimes groups of people are actually right.

    So do you think that Cooper's argument in court was a good one? The judge didn't seem too impressed, but we don't have a verdict yet. Personally I'm totally looking forward to getting married.

  24. #74
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Clothahump View post
    Yes. And I'm pretty much ignoring the wankfest it has degenerated into.

    Translation: I don't understand in the slightest how a debate actually works.

    And that's me being generous, really. Because for the life of me I can't figure out any other reason you'd post this thread in this section in good faith, when all you appear to want to do is spout off your opinions without backing them up.

  25. #75
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Taumpy View post
    when all you appear to want to do is spout off your opinions without backing them up.
    Well, it's always been his modus operandi. Dude has no backup for any of his opinions. He was always that way at the SDMB too. His opinions just aren't based on reason -- that's why he can't come up with any reasoning.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts