Posted on 12/10/2006 2:01:49 PM PST by wagglebee
Your post is a prime example of why people think conservatives are nuts.
This is true.
This jerk is not asking questions. He is not curious. He simply thinks of himself as superior. Apparently he wasn't rasied as well as he thinks. He doesn't seem to know the difference between what is his business and what is not. A basic for grown ups.
I have an updated categorical index more than 3 times the size of the above index of links. It's too large for FR, but there are some folks who are reproducing the updated copy and making it available on the web. I'll check in on their progress and post a link.
I am not getting the love the sinner, hate the sin here. We should probably just stone all the homosexuals, like the adulterers. That will fix the marriage problem, old testament style.
Exactly. This guy sees only what he wants to see - and that apparently is anything that makes him feel superior to those who are different from him.
How on earth do you know what they despise or what they admire?
I would rather she Mary Cheney raise children than you. You have a real sickness, imo.
You sound paranoid to me.
Wow. That's great... and rare. It's too bad other gay or pro-gay folks cannot respond in such a manner...
Who is the Daddy? There is a Dad, you know. And courts will and can reach out and find who that Dad is, with great upset and discomfort to all in various situations.
By circumstance the Dad can be held to full account for all the expense of raising the child, that circumstance may be unlikely in this case, but no one knows the future. A court can not break the obligations of fatherhood, it is not a contract the court can sever. As least I would hope that is still the case, otherwise the courts are really acting like Gods.
The child is a "bastard". That's not a kind fate and inheritance by birth to grant a kid. The word "bastard" was found in the common law -- I guess that would better be called case law or hornbook law -- up until the first part of last century. The progressive movement changed the word to "child born out of wedlock", a pretty euphemism. See for example, Paternity Proceedings in New York Columbia Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1926), pp. 94-97
Historically, for thousands of years across many cultures and continuing in some to this day it is a crime or misdemeanor to cause a child to be born out of wedlock. Why laugh like a modern loonie in the face of history? It may have seemed harsh, and was, but it kept families intact and avoided the pervasive problems we see today from broken families and a high rate of production of children out of wedlock. Where do we see those problems? In schools. In the criminal courts, in those families NOT so well etsablished and more subject and less able to recover from the ocassioned economic or life misfortunes. For such families, and especially for the innocent kids in those families -- those innocent bastards by no choice of their own -- a thing minor to the Cheney's can become a irrecoverable hardship trapping the kid in a downward spiral ending in lifetime poverty, incarceration, early death, etc.
No euphemism or playing nice makes it pretty. Life is harsh for most kids born "out of wedlock" just because of that one fact -- being born out of wedlock. And life is very harsh to some of them. But why should you care? It's the Cheney's, after all.
Damn hundreds of thousands for her example, but it doesn't matter to some around here. It is a modern insanity.
Knock it off.
You know what. Some people will never be persuaded by bigotry and prejudice. I doubt you will understadn what I am saying - but I'll give it a try - for the record.
Ping!
Oh, wait...I'm straight (as my boyfriend will attest)
Does "Ping!" sound too gay???
I thought the entire thing read like a high schooler wrote it.
Disgusting.
I think they probably feel the same about you.
Pingy Dingy would be gay.
You seem obsessed with homosexuals.
Go with you gut :-)
No, the statement in the article is correct and you are incorrect. The article stated the truth as it stands today. You make claims about hypothetical, future, events as proof that you are correct. Much like Edwards claiming that stem sell research will allow people to get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. You don't know. Edwards was playing politics with unknown science and so are you.
Ping-a-ling would be gay. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.