This is just the Godless sodomites at the Blaze trying to
throw dirt on the Catholics.
March 13, 2013 at 4:46pm
Pollster Mark Baselice in Austin:
‘After comparing surveys from California and Texas, Baselice also said Hispanics self-identify as moderate and conservative at significantly higher rates in Texas. In California, 37 percent of Hispanics call themselves conservative, 30 percent say they’re moderate and 33 percent embrace the liberal label.
In Texas, 46 percent of Hispanics say they are conservative, 36 percent are moderate and 18 percent say they are liberal, Baselice said.’
Didn't look at the links, but are those Hispanics legal residents? If not, what happens after amnesty?
It doesn't matter what they SAY they are, it only matters how they vote. Most hispanics live a conservative lifestyle but they almost all vote for the democrat because they buy into the propaganda that the dem is on their side.
Here is some actual proof of how hispanics vote: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/TX
February 26, 2013 at 3:51pm
Gay ‘marriage’ is not a part of the party platform and the majority of conservatives do not suppport redefining marriage. And 4 former govenors is hardly anything to shout about. Most people will not have heard of the 80 republicans that signed the brief
January 20, 2013 at 2:18pm
There are a lot of people moving to Texas from Califronia and other liberal states, could they change Texas to a purple state?
Note Reuters is interpreting the comments and not posting Pope Benedict’s speech. Find his speech. Pope Benedict has denounced socialism as has many previous Popes. Pope Benedict supports an ethical dimension to capitalism but that does not mean he is embracing socialism. Church solidarity
December 9, 2012 at 6:51pm
By the way I am 20 years old
December 9, 2012 at 6:49pm
I am suprised Glenn Beck said that. My opinion of George Will has also gone down with his statement. Gay ‘marriage’ has been banned in 32 states. It is legal in a handful of states but most of those were not by the peoples vote. MY, MI and WA pro gay ‘marriag’e advocates outspent National Organisation for Marriage by over $20 million and yet gay ‘marriage’ passed slimly and these are liberal states. I do not how you can call yourself a conservative and not be stringently against gay ‘marriage.’ Government has a role in protecting and preserving marriage been 1 man and 1 woman because the state has an interest in ensuring that the ideal of bringing up children which numerous studies have said is best when a child is raised by biological parents that are married, and the state has interest in transmitting social values and preserving social order that are based on a proper understanding of marriage, which is between 1 woman and 1 man
All marriages should be gay! The State should stay out of it. Marriage is a church issue.
So you want the government, to decide what is correct behavior for you.
Be careful using "studies" as justification for federal government intrusion. Poverty studies have given us the welfare state. Environmental studies have given us the EPa, etc., etc.
" numerous studies have said is best when a child is raised by biological parents that are married"
Would you outlaw divorce and adoption then? You seem to base your position behind what's best for kids... but if studies also show that two parents (of either sex) better raise children than a single parents, then the bigger issue should be divorce rather than gay marriage, yes?
You also add in biological parenting; but gays can have biological children as well. Doesn't that undermine your argument even further?
Could you site one study that says that? because I can name 4 children myself who are not better off with heterosexual parents, One was abusive. the others the dad ditched. Gay people make good parents because for them to have a child they must actually want one! also I understand it is a conservative principle to keep the oppression going. but it really shouldn't be. This is a natural step in our evolution. and I guarantee you in 50 years the ban on gay marriage will be compared to the Jim crow laws. what side of history do you want to be on? And finally gay marriage being against your religion is NO argument against it being legal... thanks to our first amendment.
Marriage is a state issue, because you have to factor in all the marriage benefits. and as far as government not intruding.. that can work both ways. being as government has been intruding on the right for two women or two men to marry since our government was formed.
Locked - So that means two people of the same gender can naturally reproduce?
Keaton - How come the first amendment wasn't applied to religious institutions being forced to provide birth control against their will?
@KEATON and LOCKED Are you asserting that gay couples never fight? ...Gay couples never have domestic strife, EVER? ...Gay couples who "made" kids do not divorce and then have bitter bitter custody battles over the children??? (This is already happening, by the way!)
Oh, I see, I must have missed the memo stating that gay people are simply cut out to be better parents because it's their 'choice'.
@KEATON "And finally gay marriage being against your religion is NO argument against it being legal… thanks to our first amendment."
Keaton: What are you going to say to a traditional Muslim family that would like to have their polygamy (1 husband, 2 - 4 wives) legally recognized here, let's say...in California? What are you going to do then?
" Are you asserting that gay couples never fight?"
Nope. Where'd you get that from?
"…Gay couples never have domestic strife, EVER?"
Again, where did you get that from?
"…Gay couples who “made” kids do not divorce and then have bitter bitter custody battles over the children??? (This is already happening, by the way!)"
Nope, where did you get that from?
Moon8 said that "numerous studies" found two things are predictors of successful children: 2-parent households, and being biologically related to the child. If that's his basis of who should get married, then outlawing divorce and adoption would be a much higher priority than keeping gay marriage banned, as gays can have biological children and can have a two-person household.
" I must have missed the memo stating that gay people are simply cut out to be better parents because it’s their ‘choice’."
Moon8's the one who made the argument. You did nothing to refute it (indeed, you didn't even reply to his post)... but if you have a problem, I suggest taking it up with him. He's the one with "numerous studies" that turned out to say the exact opposite of what he wanted: that gay parents can make strong families to raise productive children.
@KEATON and LOCKED Anecdotal exceptions do not prove the rule.
@LOCKED Keaton stated: "Gay people make good parents because for them to have a child they must actually want one!" ...a rather broad generalization.
You: "He’s [Moon8] the one with “numerous studies” that turned out to say the exact opposite of what he wanted: that gay parents can make strong families to raise productive children."
Really? Please cite your sources.
"Anecdotal exceptions do not prove the rule."
I didn't make any anecdotal exceptions. I responded to Moon8's initial premise. Something, I will add, you still have not done.
But hey, you're asking the wrong man if you want these "numerous studies." Moon8 was the one who made the assertion: I'm following it to the natural conclusion.
Quick Google search though says children raised by gay parents perform almost as well in school as the children of married heterosexual couples, and significantly better than those of single-parent households: http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf
So, to the original topic: what do you think of Moon8's argument, that the best chance for children is to have a biological tie to their parents and to be married? Would it not make more sense to ban adoption and divorce than to ban gay marriage?
@LOCKED "Quick Google search though says children raised by gay parents perform almost as well in school as the children of married heterosexual couples, and significantly better than those of single-parent households"
Thank you for providing that, Locked. Basically what a study like this demonstrates is that two financial/emotional contributors are better than one. However, it's more an argument against single parenthood than it is an argument for homosexual parenthood. Clearly there are many intangibles involved with the successful raising of children. Depending on the motives of the entities who conducted the studies, certain biases are to be expected in the results.
"Would it not make more sense to ban adoption and divorce than to ban gay marriage?" I'm a little perplexed by this question... if you ban adoption, then the gay parent aspect in that equation is nullified (as in: gay parents can either both adopt, or one "parent" must be an adoptive one while the other is the biological contributor + an absent/anonymous donor. No adoption = no gay parents.)
Your question is basically: ban gay marriage VERSUS ban adoption and divorce.
You need to make the relationship between these options a little more coherent in order to have a proper discussion about it.
@LOCKED "...the best chance for children is to have a biological tie to their parents and to be married?"
YES. Without a doubt. Biological ties are what create and define a family, and it is so primal and innate a bond that I think it's ridiculous to have to define and defend this aspect of human continuity to you. But I'm nice, and I'm happy to indulge.
Of course the cynical (and idiotic) response to the above statement is to point out the defective/abusive biological parents, and then to draw an erroneous conclusion about how that small minority proves that "alternative lifestyle" individuals are naturally more suited to the task of parenting overall (please see Keaton's statement as an example). Wrong. This amounts to looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and is a classic example of skewing reality to suit a political agenda.
You don't seem to address Moon8's point though. Gays can have children... and at least one parent will be biologically related to the child. They can raise said children in a two-parent household. If this is Moon8's central premise as to why gays can't be married, it fails terribly... especially compared to the current legal stance, that divorce and adoption are allowed.
I am in NO WAY advocating that adoption and divorce be outlawed. I'm pointing out that if someone would use Moon8's criteria as the basis for what is or is not legal when it comes to marriage, he's not making a case against gay marriage, but rather one against both adoption and divorce.
Hope that clears it up.
LOCKED: Not to end this little tete-a-tete on a silly note, but when you say, "Gays can have children… and at least one parent will be biologically related to the child", we need to go back to discuss the definition of the word "have" as it relates to reproduction.
Male. Female. Gametes. Zygote.
Gays cannot "have" children. Two males cannot make a baby. Two females cannot. A baby will not be the natural consequence and conclusion of a homosexual union, regardless of what "modern" attitudes, laboratory techniques, and donated gametes attempt to bypass.
I tend to concur with the Catholic church's stance about the creation of new people: the farther you get from the natural act between parents which results in new life, the more 'wrongs' will result. (And to answer the question you're about to ask...I believe this applies to everyone, even barren heterosexual couples, who in my opinion, really ought to adopt a child.)
@LOCKED (this might be a redundant post, first one didn't show up) Here's a bone to pick apart.
Question: Should the children of a gay couple be allowed to investigate their biological heritage once they're adults?
What happens when some of the youth being raised by homosexual couples get to that rebellious stage and reject their upbringing altogether? It already happens on the basis of religion, politics, & attitudes, so it's a distinct possibility no matter how lovingly people are raised. Generally speaking, people do not like mystery --or lies, or half-truths-- especially when it comes to something as deeply personal as biology and identity. Only time will tell.
"A baby will not be the natural consequence and conclusion of a homosexual union"
So what? That's not a requirement of marriage.
"I tend to concur with the Catholic church’s stance about the creation of new people: the farther you get from the natural act between parents which results in new life, the more ‘wrongs’ will result. (And to answer the question you’re about to ask…I believe this applies to everyone, even barren heterosexual couples, who in my opinion, really ought to adopt a child.)"
Actually, then your response should be that at least one parent should be biologically related to a child, as that's closer than adoption of a non-biologically related child. A barren couple shouldn't adopt: they should get a birth mother, or get artificially inseminated.
Obviously that's not the "Catholic" teaching, but it is what the correct response should be if you think biological factors are most important.
"Question: Should the children of a gay couple be allowed to investigate their biological heritage once they’re adults? "
Of course. One of my best friend's is adopted: no biological relation to her parents. She found out that her actual parents gave her up, but kept several other children. Her biological father was an alcoholic who died early. It was depressing for her, but she realized that she had good parents who DID want her and love her even without being related.
I think you're really getting off-topic?