The Goat Pen

eCat wrote:I think a child being raised in a same sex marriage is going to be handicapped in society to some degree moreso than in a traditional family.

I used to say the same thing. I don't think the numbers bear that out.

It's more dangerous and problematic for a gay kid with two married opposite sex parents than it is for a hetero kid with same sex parents. I have not seen a viable, peer reviewed study that shows that hetero kids growing up in same sex households are any more maladjusted than kids with opposite sex parents. In fact, I've only seen the opposite. There are no differentiating effects of growing up in a same sex household.

keep in mind, I don't think the government should have any position on marriage.

If a man wants to have 3 wives and its all consensual, I'm all for it. If two men want to marry, I'm all for it - but I don't want any of it legally recognized by our federal government, or even our state government.

I just happen to believe that a gay couple isn't going to be able to raise a child as well as a traditional family, nor is a single parent,etc

Single parents are definitely disadvantaging their children. It is a fact that children from single parent households have higher incidents of early, unwanted pregnancies, poverty and education cessation. You're right there.

The same hasn't been shown for kids of same sex households.

but I don't want any of it legally recognized by our federal government, or even our state government.

I hear you on that...I've largely said that marriage should be viewed as a church activity/institution. The thing is, the government has to get involved as there are property, medical rights, insurance and tax implications.

Try removing the government recognition of marriage as a legal structure and watch all hell break lose when you try to get your insurance company to recognize your wife getting her mammogram covered, if she does not work and have her own insurance.

I can see that but I'm not so sure that it wouldn't work out for the better of everyone.

Insurance is offered as a perk, and if a company could get away with not having insurance to be competitive, they would.

That said, a company would recognize that the majority of its employees are going to need family coverage but a traditional marriage is what constitutes a family, so without formally recognizing marriage then the policies would be more in line with you, a significant other, and 2 or 3 children are covered under a family plan

and that would allow gay, straight, married, girlfriends, whatever or would promote a more cafeteria style insurance plan that meets the needs of each person without favoritism toward a wife or children.

Where it is shitty is if a guy is in the hospital and the hospital has a policy of family only and they don't recognize a gay partner as family or as a decision maker - and again, that is because of the traditional role of marriage as its defined.

The answer isn't to widen the definition of marriage, the answer is to eliminate the definition of marriage by the government.

But the definition of marriage has little to do with my concerns regarding who should raise a child.

what percenter are you?

you may either feel good or bad about yourself with this page.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... t-map.html

I'm destroying Flint, Michigan. In NYC...I'm just a regular well-to-do guy.

I noticed that as well

The Chinese micro-blogging service Weibo has exploded with rumors that new North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un was assassinated today at the North Korean embassy in Beijing. Twitter death rumors are totally cross-cultural.

Here's one version of the rumor, cleaned up from the crappy Google translation:

According to reliable sources, North Korean leader [Kim Jong-Un was killed] in Beijing in February 10 2012, at 2 o'clock and 45 minutes. Unknown persons broke into his residence shot and were subsequently shot and killed by the bodyguard.

Official Internet Rule: Any (Chinese) Twitter post that begins with "according to reliable source" is almost certainly fake. But this hasn't stopped Chinese netizens from speculating that the killing was a military coup, and posting blurry pictures purporting to show an unusual number of vehicles parked at the North Korean embassy. ChinaSMACK staff writer Joe Xu suggests reports of large number of cars at the embassy may have sparked the rumor. "Rumors like this pop up every other week," he writes on Twitter.

We will only know Kim Jong-Un's fate for sure when a new picture of him looking at things emerges.

Update: If you live in China, please help us figure out if Kim Jong-Un is dead

What is the top 1% if you go with assets rather than income?

Carville gives the view from the other side

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/c ... hpt=hp_t2p

Regardless of the truth of it or not, from the beginning (even on here) I said that Korea has a very strong possibility of going to military rule. The only thing that can keep this Kim reign going is if people keep accepting the mythology of the Kim bloodline.

I don't know how well that will go over if Jong-Un is more Nero than Augustus.

Carville is funny. Something about those Louisianans, they have a joie de vivre.

Bklyn wrote:Regardless of the truth of it or not, from the beginning (even on here) I said that Korea has a very strong possibility of going to military rule. The only thing that can keep this Kim reign going is if people keep accepting the mythology of the Kim bloodline.

I don't know how well that will go over if Jong-Un is more Nero than Augustus.

It sounds like they've already had Caligula and Claudius so Nero would be an improvement.

Good lord, I'd be like the Grand Puba in Flint. That's damned depressing.

Whether things seem to be going very well or very badly around him—whether he is announcing the death of Osama bin Laden or his latest compromise in the face of Republican opposition in Congress—Obama always presents the same dispassionate face. Has he been so calm because he has understood so much about the path ahead of him, and has been so clever in the traps he has set for his rivals? Or has he been so calm because he has been so innocently unaware of how dire the situation has truly been?

This is the central mystery of his performance as a candidate and a president. Has Obama in office been anything like the chess master he seemed in the campaign, whose placid veneer masked an ability to think 10 moves ahead, at which point his adversaries would belatedly recognize that they had lost long ago? Or has he been revealed as just a pawn—a guy who got lucky as a campaigner but is now pushed around by political opponents who outwit him and economic trends that overwhelm him?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ined/8874/

In my world Flint would be my Mexican cousin.

Hardcore religiosity...whether Christian, Budhist, Judaism or Islamic is kinda wacked out to me...

The critical battleground in the War Between the Grunwalds would prove to be niddah, or "separation," i.e., when the menstruating female is considered "impure" and kept apart from her husband. "It isn’t just your period," Gitty says. After a woman stops bleeding, she has to wear white underwear for seven days, checking constantly to see if there’s any discharge. Should spotting occur, the woman takes her underwear to a special rabbi who examines the color, shape, and density of the stain. It is he who divines when it is safe for the woman to immerse herself in the mikvah (ritual bath) and be reunited with her husband.

"Great, huh? Some old rabbi looking at your panties with a magnifying glass?" Gitty asks. "This was so embarrassing to me. In KJ, everything is about sex; this idea of sex made up by men from 300 years ago."

"I wouldn’t do it anymore. I stopped counting, wore black underwear. I walked around the house in shorts, because when you’re impure, your husband can’t touch you or even look at your arm. Yoely would hide his eyes and start crying, 'Put on your turban, please put on your turban.’ "

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/48532/

well, the idea of women being kept apart from their husbands during their period isn't that wacked out...

If a man wants to have 3 wives and its all consensual, I'm all for it. If two men want to marry, I'm all for it - but I don't want any of it legally recognized by our federal government, or even our state government.

So married couples should each feel out their own taxes? All individual taxes? How would that work with homeowners deductions? Seeking clarification.