Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Dr. Strangelove]

Sardis, in my liberal circles, I don't know of any women who opted for single parenthood in order to benefit from these programs. Personally, I think women who benefit from such programs should abstain from sex.

irrelevant. Neither you (nor your liberal circles) are the marginal case.

Ann Coulter made this argument against single parenting on The View and she was ruthlessly lambasted for it. Whether single moms benefiting from these subsidies and checks should abstain from sex, is not going to make them do so. Your willful ignorance of the reality of this situation, I find troubling.

Exactly. The govt needs to force these women into marriage by denying all benefits to unwed individuals. That will 1) have the effect of preserving the sancitity of marriage and making it meaningful again and 2) Preserve cherished freedoms.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Can you give some examples?

I really have a hard time understanding this level of ignorance....Ever hear of the "war on poverty"???..."
great society".... Read anything on the breakdown of the black family in the past 40 years??

God damned Civil Rights acts! Negro families were better off in their own separate but more or less equal facilities!

Don't forget the radical redefinition of marriage that took place in the 1960's when the federal govt, contrary to centuries of tradition and law, forced interracial marriage down our throats. OUTRAGEOUS

[Dr. Strangelove]

Michelle Bachmann: Liar or just Ignorant?


WASHINGTON -- Michele Bachmann's claim that she has "never gotten a penny" from a family farm that's been subsidized by the government is at odds with her financial disclosure statements. They show tens of thousands in personal income from the operation.

And, on a less substantive note, she flubbed her hometown history when declaring "John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa," and "that's the kind of spirit that I have, too," in running for president.

The actor was born nearly 150 miles away. It was the serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr. who lived, for a time, in Waterloo.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/ ... 38961.html

[innocentbystander]

What did Jesus say about gays?

He never mentions them specifically in the new testament

most references to homosexiulaity as a sin is in levitiscus

I don't think there is a reference to gay/homosexuality anywhere in the Bible.

The entire concept of "sexuality" is a relatively new term (the last hundred years or so.) Man having anal sex with man is something that existed thousands of years ago (something that was frowned upon by God as he had his Angels rush Lot and his daughters from Sodom), but to define those sodomites as "homosexual", that is not something that is said anywhere in the Bible (Old Testament or The Gospels.) There was no such thing as "sexuality" in the Bible.

What is said in the Bible is that man shall not lie with man, nor woman with woman, nor man with beast. That is pretty objective, even if it isn't describing the people who engage in these acts as homosexuals, lesbians, or deviants of beastiality. In Biblical times, man having anal sex with man was not a sexual practice performed by those who had a same-sex-attraction lifestyle (per se.) It was instead very similar to what it is today's world, a very common act of sodomy between an Alpha-male and a willing female, an act of physical domination and submissiveness.

Dr Victor Davis Hanson (PhD in the Classics) referred to this behavior (pre-Christ) as "the itch." The "itch" was addictive. As any woman and man who routinely engage in this sexual behavior will tell you, anal sex is addictive. It becomes a preference, something that once it is experienced, it is hard to resist (for the emasculated male who emotionally craves domination as physically a woman's anus is tighter and has 0% chance of pregnancy, for the submissive woman who emotionally craves being dominated by a man as physically her anus has thousands of nerve endings giving her a much deeper climax than pure clitoral stimulation.) Addictive.

Biblically, God frowns upon this behavior. He understands why so many mortals crave "the itch", be He does not condone it. He gives is Free Will to engage in it, but sexual congress with no chance of procreation is an act of Lust and not of Love. From a purely Biblical standpoint, marriage is about procreation. So same-sex-marriage (by it's very definition) could never be marriage in any sense of the Bible. It is of man, and not of God.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a treatise on anal sex? VDH NAILS IT!

[sardis]

And (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Matt 19:4

[innocentbystander]

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a treatise on anal sex? VDH NAILS IT!

He understands history, something that too many of those who support same-sex-marriage do not understand.

[Toemeesleather]

Now that we've defined everyone's position on same sex marriage, let's go on to age of consent....what say we lower it gradually, say over a decade to 14?


Discuss.

[TheBigMook]

Now that we've defined everyone's position on same sex marriage, let's go on to age of consent....what say we lower it gradually, say over a decade to 14?


Discuss.

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed.

[innocentbystander]

Michelle Bachmann: Liar or just Ignorant?


WASHINGTON -- Michele Bachmann's claim that she has "never gotten a penny" from a family farm that's been subsidized by the government is at odds with her financial disclosure statements. They show tens of thousands in personal income from the operation.

And, on a less substantive note, she flubbed her hometown history when declaring "John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa," and "that's the kind of spirit that I have, too," in running for president.

The actor was born nearly 150 miles away. It was the serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr. who lived, for a time, in Waterloo.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/ ... 38961.html

Ignorant.

[Dora]

Easy divorce helped raise single parenthood. So what we need to do is make it nearly impossible to divorce. Or at least, make it easy for a man but next to impossible for the woman. Which is the way it was back in the good old days. And the husband assumes ownership of all his wife's possessions and dowry upon marriage. Tradional marriage, baby. Let's make it happen

Actually, rather than coming down on gay marriage, we need to criminalize sex outside the marriage. No sex for single people. Ever.

[innocentbystander]

irrelevant. Neither you (nor your liberal circles) are the marginal case.

Ann Coulter made this argument against single parenting on The View and she was ruthlessly lambasted for it. Whether single moms benefiting from these subsidies and checks should abstain from sex, is not going to make them do so. Your willful ignorance of the reality of this situation, I find troubling.

Exactly. The govt needs to force these women into marriage by denying all benefits to unwed individuals. That will 1) have the effect of preserving the sancitity of marriage and making it meaningful again and 2) Preserve cherished freedoms.

No.

The government must stop subsiding single-moms.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Another example is welfare. To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as "Widows and orphans pensions", which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be--and was--a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who's spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant's meeting: housewives, don't shake your dustcloths out of the windows--other wives don't want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don't walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.

Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C'mon said the activists. That's just silly. I just can't imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.

Oooops.

Of course, change didn't happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in "the negro family" (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

[Dora]

irrelevant. Neither you (nor your liberal circles) are the marginal case.

It's very relevant to the assertion made here that liberal politicians encourage single parenthood among their constituents. My liberal circle friends are constituents of liberal politicians.

[innocentbystander]

irrelevant. Neither you (nor your liberal circles) are the marginal case.

It's very relevant to the assertion made here that liberal politicians encourage single parenthood among their constituents. My liberal circle friends are constituents of liberal politicians.

Then tell them to change the law. Tell them to vote to take away subsidies to single parents. Tell them to read Megan's essay on Gay Marriage. Two posts above this one....

[AlabamAlum]

Sardis,

I would put my knowledge of the Bible up against most true believers. My love of the Book of Leviticus is well known. I will look for any chance to discuss the high comedy therein (as well as select readings from Exodus, Genesis, Kings and a few others - it's great reading). I ask that you indulge and excuse me when I seek out opportunities to insert the teachings it contains.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what you say. There are far more serious matters to be concerned about wrt marriage and family. And I've conceded from the onset that same-sex religions are anathema to the practitioners of Judeo-Christian religions.

AA,

You are most certainly an intelligent fellow; however, the mere fact that you concentrate on certain passages in the Old Testament, alone, to determine proper Christian Biblical adherence shows lack of understanding of the Bible as whole. If your beef was with Orthodox Jews then you may have a point; however, Christianity is not bound by many of the laws in the Old Testament since many were specific for that time before the Messiah. Jesus himself reinforced many, but also refuted many. Christians follow the teachings of Christ and his apostles first and foremost.

Sardis,

I fully understand the reason that its teachings and stories are superseded by "modern" doctrine; however, when I've asked religious people how they know that homosexuality is wrong, I have been quoted Leviticus 18 and 20 - which 'opens the door' (for me) to lampoon other OT 'laws'. A good number of the stories there are absurd, hilarious, or give one the impression that God is a petty, cruel, and vindictive villain. If I were religious, I would cringe when it was quoted and would remind folks that its teachings aren't followed by Christians (as detailed in various passages in the Books of John, Corinthians and Romans), but the fact remains that those passages serve as foundation for the belief that it is a moral abomination.

[GBJs]

Someone, who is a liberal, please give me a definition of the term.

I vote republican for the most part because I believe in smaller government, but I'm not opposed to voting for the right person for the job. (Obama ain't it)

I don't disallow anyones comments to assist unwed mothers. CAP THE BENEFITS! Have all the bastard children you want, you'll not get any more money. After all, the people paying the taxes for these benefits don't get a raise just because their wife has a child. Guess we won't have to worry about that with gay marriages though huh!

I guess if this, along with my comments about hating the politically correct bullshit makes me a right winger, I'll take it with pride.

One final comment...it amazes me to watch comments made by people who've never served in the military versus people who are or have.

[GBJs]

AA, you'd better believe God is vindictive. Look at some of the "victories" he gave to his followers. The most impressive one hasn't happened yet.

[innocentbystander]

I don't disallow anyones comments to assist unwed mothers. CAP THE BENEFITS! Have all the bastard children you want, you'll not get any more money. After all, the people paying the taxes for these benefits don't get a raise just because their wife has a child. Guess we won't have to worry about that with gay marriages though huh!

Social Security benefits for a widow(er) same-sex-spouse (when a same-sex-spouse dies), we now must worry about....

...that is the marginal case.

Single parents should not be having all the bastards they want. That is (arguably) child abuse.

[AlabamAlum]

AA, you'd better believe God is vindictive. Look at some of the "victories" he gave to his followers. The most impressive one hasn't happened yet.

Oh, I've read the stories, GBJs.

[AlabamAlum]

Unless tasked directly, my final thoughts on the issues about the objections to gay marriage:


Civil or societal mores forbid it (or from upon it): Those mores change; they evolve. We are seeing that now with states starting to change laws to allow it.

Biology or procreation: Allowing (or disallowing) gay marriage has a net effect of zero on population rates and propagation of the species. People have offspring with or without a marriage certificate. Gays are gay with or without a marriage certificate. This is simply allowing a committed adult gay couple to enter into a binding and public union. Further, we've never enacted a 'procreation clause' to a hetero union. Hetero couples can and do get married who are biologically unable to have children.

It's not natural (or it's unknown outside of sinful humans in nature): It is natural. In the animal kingdom, biologists have known that many (most?) species have "homos". This isn't ground-breaking or PC and has been noted in texts for over 100 years.

But the definition of marriage means between a man and a woman: The definition that marriage is only between a man and woman is being changed. This isn't something new. Definitions do change, they always have. For example: We've changed our definitions of what a "man" is in this country (used to be only free, white and of age); a soldier (a man in the military); a preacher (a man who has education in the teachings of the Bible and who leads a flock) - etc. In science, we're changing definitions all the time, too (for example, Pluto as a planet or not), in medicine (what constitutes 'death' is a great example), and even in general and daily vocabulary (the word 'brave' used to mean cowardice and the word 'manufacture' used to mean that which was made by hand, etc).

History: As noted, gay unions have existed throughout many civilizations going back thousands of years.

Economics: The gays will get benefits that hetero couples get. Yep. No doubt about that. And they should.