How Liberals Attack The Family

[PassionFruit]

In fact, liberals support families more than conservatives do. When conservatives are talking about families, they're talking about white middle and upper class families in the suburbs. They're not talking about single parent homes or families with gay parents, who are supported exclusively by liberals. Liberals have the bigger tent, Rocky.

This ^

 

[Goodtry]

Now there is an outstanding reason to throw the Bible in the trash and embrace iniquity: Lower divorce rates. Well done.

Just how many gay married couples are there anyway?

Well there are plenty of reasons to throw the bible out not even related to marriage equality.

And nobody seems to know off-hand exactly how many gay married couples there are. You might try with the various Vital Statistics departments in the states where it is legal.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now there is an outstanding reason to throw the Bible in the trash and embrace iniquity: Lower divorce rates. Well done.

Assuming I don't want to kill my son, turn against my brothers and sisters, or pimp out my wife, what does the Bible have to do with families?

 

[kiwimac]

Now there is an outstanding reason to throw the Bible in the trash and embrace iniquity: Lower divorce rates. Well done.

Just how many gay married couples are there anyway?

What a bunch of heiferdust.

 

[kermit]

Now there is an outstanding reason to throw the Bible in the trash and embrace iniquity: Lower divorce rates. Well done.

How is expanding the definition of family in violation of the bible?

The bigger threat to the family is those who attack any family that doesn't fit exactly into a neat little box of their design.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How is expanding the definition of family in violation of the bible?

Especially considering that the main character of the Bible was born out of wedlock and raised in a broken home with an absentee father?

 

[jayem]

Just how many gay married couples are there anyway?

As of this 2008 article, there were 10,000 same sex marriages just in Mass. (And Mass. does have one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation.)IIRC, about 18,000 same sex couples were married in CA before Prop. 8 passed. I'm sure there are thousands more if you add in the other states that recognize civil unions/domestic partnerships. And there must be many thousands more in Canada, Belgium, Spain, and the other European countries that have legally recognized same sex couples for years. This is far from social experimentation any more.

It's irrefutable that divorce has disrupted infintely more families than homosexuality. So it's a fair question as to why homosexuality raises so much ire among social conservatives who claim to defend families. It's an easier target? Or maybe they know the battle over divorce is pretty much lost. Or--more likely than anything else--it's a reflection of Puritanism. Religious traditionalists feel enormously threatened when their sexual taboos are beginning to crumble.

 

[variant]

While they're at they should tell her that married gay couples have a lower divorce rate than straight couples. Or that children of gay couples are at least as well adjusted as children of straight couples.

But they are gay! GAY GAY GAY.

Which obviously makes this a nefarious plot to overwhelm us with big government socialism!

Sometimes I wonder why folks like Ann Coulter feel the need to tie together the disparate forces that make up the fragmented Democratic Party into some sort of massive conspiracy.

If anything should be obvious, it is that the liberal folks in this country are barely organized at all.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Lion HM:

"they're talking about white middle and upper class families in the suburbs"

There it is, the race card played with perfection. And it only took until post number 10.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by goodtry:

"Nah those aren't cross-hairs, those are just surveyor marks"

Another comment Sarah Palin never herself made.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Nathan Poe:

"Assuming I don't want to kill my son, turn against my brothers and sisters, or pimp out my wife, what does the Bible have to do with families?"

I am always amused by how you speak so forcefully about a subject you know next to nothing about.

 

[kiwimac]

And I'm always disgusted by the rhetoric of Coulter, Beck et al, the modern 'know nothings.'

 

[DaisyDay]

Posted by goodtry:

"Nah those aren't cross-hairs, those are just surveyor marks"

Another comment Sarah Palin never herself made.

Who said she did? For the record, it was a Palin aide who did say it.

 

[Gawron]

There was a thread a few weeks ago where I posted the links and the exact dialogue. Palin wasn't even part of the interview, one of her PAC members was and it was this PAC member who made the "surveyor mark" statement in response to the host suggestion that they were "surveyor marks". I would have to go through my post to find it. Or anyone really interested could do that.

EDIT: You edited your post, aisey, after I posted this response.

 

[jamesrwright3]

By the way have you been listening to that unhinged loon Glenn Beck recently? Crazy was on sale and he bought it.

He hasn't said anything crazier than that loony Olberman guy on MSNBC..
Wait he is no longer on MSNBC.

 

[Goodtry]

He hasn't said anything crazier than that loony Olberman guy on MSNBC..
Wait he is no longer on MSNBC.

Actually Olbermann only seems crazy to some people because that's what rational people sound like when you're the one who is crazy.

 

[Goodtry]

Posted by goodtry:

"Nah those aren't cross-hairs, those are just surveyor marks"

Another comment Sarah Palin never herself made.

Never said she did. Why? Did someone else say they were surveyor marks? I thought I was being 100% original. Oh well, it was kind of a lame excuse anyway.

 

[DaisyDay]

He hasn't said anything crazier than that loony Olberman guy on MSNBC..
Wait he is no longer on MSNBC.

Olberman is a blowhard clown, but he's not a loony tune like Beck. Beck is pretty far out there.

 

[DaisyDay]

There was a thread a few weeks ago where I posted the links and the exact dialogue. Palin wasn't even part of the interview, one of her PAC members was and it was this PAC member who made the "surveyor mark" statement in response to the host suggestion that they were "surveyor marks". I would have to go through my post to find it. Or anyone really interested could do that.

It was a Palin aide who said it, but no one in this thread did say Palin said, so it seems weird to go off on how she didn't.

EDIT: You edited your post, Daisy, after I posted this response.

Ha-haw, you can't prove it (though you could fake it like I faked your using my right name). One more reason to use the quote button. (For those who didn't catch it, my original post was something like "Who did say it?").

I do have an unfortunate tendency to read my posts, look up what I'm uncertain about, reconsider what I write and rewrite quickly. A tiger can't change her spots.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Goodtry:

"Actually Olbermann only seems crazy to some people because that's what rational people sound like when you're the one who is crazy"

OK. Here is Olberman being rational.

YouTube - Another example of what got LUNATIC Keith OLBERMANN FIRED

And here, after the FOX News bit, Olberman apologizes for his oh so rational comment:

YouTube - Brown Wins and Olbermann's Head Explodes

Perhaps it was because he was so rational that he lost his gig on MSNBC and was banished to the Al Gore network. Probably the only channel that fewer people watch.