Conservatives Demand Kids of Gays be Expelled

[BLB_Oregon]

Jay74:

Okay, where did I contend that only the children of unmarried parents or someone too young or too poor would end up in prison? Nowhere.

There are plenty of people in prison who have two married rich well-aged parents. That’s a no brainer. I did not say otherwise.

Also, did you know that about 70% of men in prison didn’t have a father? Plenty had fathers, but the illegitimacy rate has certainly contributed to crime.

As for the poor, I never suggested that only children of poor wind up in prison. But people should be able to afford kids before they had them.

In addition to illegitimacy, immature teenage parents have a higher tendency to create a criminal adult.

If I was misunderstood, I apologize. But before you accuse me of being irresponsible, or ridiculous for that matter, you should refrain from accusing me of saying things I didnt’ say.

You said:
*I once argued that they should make one have a license to have kids, and the requiremnts to get a license are age, marriage, suitable home, adequate income, etc. If they would do this, then in about 20 years they could stop building prisons. *
I said:
Your contention that only the children of unmarried parents or those of an “unsuitable” age or income necessitate the building of prisons is ridiculous to the point of being irresponsible.
Neither of us said anywhere that you contended that only the people in question go to prison. I put it the way you put it: that without them, there would be no need to build prisons. Where did I mis-represent you? You can see where you did imply that one follows from the other… are you saying now that you merely committed an unintentional non sequitor? And if we resent building so many prisons, we might start by asking whether or not we need to try another tack on the war on drugs… you undoubtedly know what those statistics are. There is much more wrong with the state of

What I take you to task for is furthering the concept that the state has any right to decide who may or may not have children. That idea would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous, and for that reason I contend that to bandy it about* is* irresponsible. Be quite sure that if anything like such a license you wrote of ever came into being, that a blanket limit on family size in general such as exists in China would not be far behind.

Now, if you want to talk about ways to encourage people to only choose to have children within marriage, to postpone marriage until they are mature, to keep families well-employed and to keep both natural parents in their homes with their children and to give guidance, love, and stability to children whose parents are absent or poorly equipped to parent… well, I can get on board with those concepts. But let’s not toss around the licensing nonsense anymore.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Jay74:

Okay, where did I contend that only the children of unmarried parents or someone too young or too poor would end up in prison? Nowhere.

There are plenty of people in prison who have two married rich well-aged parents. That’s a no brainer. I did not say otherwise.

Also, did you know that about 70% of men in prison didn’t have a father? Plenty had fathers, but the illegitimacy rate has certainly contributed to crime.

As for the poor, I never suggested that only children of poor wind up in prison. But people should be able to afford kids before they had them.

In addition to illegitimacy, immature teenage parents have a higher tendency to create a criminal adult.

If I was misunderstood, I apologize. But before you accuse me of being irresponsible, or ridiculous for that matter, you should refrain from accusing me of saying things I didnt’ say.

You said:
*I once argued that they should make one have a license to have kids, and the requiremnts to get a license are age, marriage, suitable home, adequate income, etc. If they would do this, then in about 20 years they could stop building prisons. *
To which I said:
Your contention that only the children of unmarried parents or those of an “unsuitable” age or income necessitate the building of prisons is ridiculous to the point of being irresponsible.

Neither of us said that you contended that only the children in question go to prison. I re-stated it the way you put it: that without them, there would eventually be no need to build prisons. Where did I mis-represent you? You can see where your words might imply that one follows from the other… that was an unintentional non sequitur*?*

Truly, what I take you to task for is furthering the concept—even in jest—that the state has any right to decide who may or may not have children. That idea would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous, and for that reason I contend that to bandy it about* is* irresponsible. Be quite sure that if anything like such a license you wrote of ever came into being, a blanket limit on family size in general (such as exists in China) would not be far behind.

Now, if you want to talk about ways to encourage people to only choose to have children within marriage, to postpone marriage until they are mature, to keep families well-employed, to keep both natural parents in their homes with their children, and to give guidance, love, and stability to children whose parents are absent or poorly equipped to parent… well, I can get on board with those concepts. But let’s not toss around the licensing nonsense anymore You don’t know how seriously you might be taken!

PS Although we could discuss the ills afflicting the American male at length—and might profitably do so—it would seem by the numbers that we need so many prisons primarily because of our war on drugs. Like it or not, that’s the truth. But the question of how to go about our modern-day version of Prohibition is a topic for another thread.

 

[Jay74]

BLB_Oregon:

You said:
*I once argued that they should make one have a license to have kids, and the requiremnts to get a license are age, marriage, suitable home, adequate income, etc. If they would do this, then in about 20 years they could stop building prisons. *
To which I said:
Your contention that only the children of unmarried parents or those of an “unsuitable” age or income necessitate the building of prisons is ridiculous to the point of being irresponsible.

Neither of us said that you contended that only the children in question go to prison. I re-stated it the way you put it: that without them, there would eventually be no need to build prisons. Where did I mis-represent you? You can see where your words might imply that one follows from the other… that was an unintentional non sequitur*?*

Truly, what I take you to task for is furthering the concept—even in jest—that the state has any right to decide who may or may not have children. That idea would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous, and for that reason I contend that to bandy it about* is* irresponsible. Be quite sure that if anything like such a license you wrote of ever came into being, a blanket limit on family size in general (such as exists in China) would not be far behind.

Now, if you want to talk about ways to encourage people to only choose to have children within marriage, to postpone marriage until they are mature, to keep families well-employed, to keep both natural parents in their homes with their children, and to give guidance, love, and stability to children whose parents are absent or poorly equipped to parent… well, I can get on board with those concepts. But let’s not toss around the licensing nonsense anymore You don’t know how seriously you might be taken!

PS Although we could discuss the ills afflicting the American male at length—and might profitably do so—it would seem by the numbers that we need so many prisons primarily because of our war on drugs. Like it or not, that’s the truth. But the question of how to go about our modern-day version of Prohibition is a topic for another thread.

Well, if I sounded that way it wasn’t intentional. My argument was hypothetical, and I certainly wouldn’t want to actually enforce such a thing. Just a discussion.

Anyways, for what it’s worth I do appreciate you pointing out how I came across. It’s often easy to read somethign I’ve wrote and see what I mean to say, but harder to see what soemone else may hear.

Thanks for your comments and time to discuss this. (i do mean that sincerely).

Blessings

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Jay74:

Well, if I sounded that way it wasn’t intentional. My argument was hypothetical, and I certainly wouldn’t want to actually enforce such a thing. Just a discussion.

Anyways, for what it’s worth I do appreciate you pointing out how I came across. It’s often easy to read somethign I’ve wrote and see what I mean to say, but harder to see what soemone else may hear.

Thanks for your comments and time to discuss this. (i do mean that sincerely).

Blessings

I would hope to come across even half so graciously as you just did. You are right… the words never seem to read the same as they sounds in one’s head, even with a proof-read. Blessings upon you, too.

 

[God_saves]

Jay74:

As a conservative, I believe the children should be permitted to attend the school.

Here is a good related article. It isn’t about gays, it’s about a stripper. However, the concepts and strong rationale for allowing the children to stay in the school are demonstrated.

---

The stripper and the Christian school
by Dennis Prager
June 2, 2002
townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20020605.shtml

The Capital Christian School in Sacramento, Calif., is faced with a real dilemma: Should it expel a 5-year-old girl whose mother is a stripper, and therefore sinning against Christianity (and any religion)?

The school has told the mother that since her finances are a problem, it would help with the daughter’s tuition and try to find the mother other employment. The mother at first refused the offer, and then she agreed in order to allow her daughter to stay for kindergarten graduation. After receiving national publicity, however, she posed nude for Playboy on the Internet.
What should the school do?

Continued at:
townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20020605.shtml

Dear Jay74

The article by Dennis Prager (one of my favorite talk show hosts) is a very good one and as usual Mr. Prager makes very good points. The article does not exactly fit the present circumstances, however. Prager makes it clear that it is those who expose and make public the situation regarding the stripper, who create scandal and gossip, but in this case it is the two men who adopted the children, themselves who make their situation public. They have made no effort to keep things private. Their relationship is very public, they wear wedding rings, make no effort to keep their living arrangement private, attend school functions and Mass together, as well as often arrive together to deliver and pick up their adopted children, and listed themselves as “father” and “father” of the children in the school directory. I am afraid that therin lies the scandal.

God saves.

 

[God_saves]

fix:

Many arguments can be made refuting homosexual adoption. My first thought is for the soul of the child. How can it be loving to expose the child and teach the child that committing a grave sin is not only not an evil, but a good. The parents would teach the child by their actions and words that homosexual conduct is normal and virtuous. This is not love. Our goal should be to help each other reach heaven, not help poorly form a child’s conscience.

Dear Fix,

Thank you for your insightful post. You so clearly articulate true charity. Authentic love and compassion would be to confront the men in this case and tell them, “brothers don’t continue on this path”, not encourage them by patting them on the back or giving them a group hug. That is precisely what was done by admitting the children to the school in the first place, although I have no idea what to do regarding that decision this far down the line. The trouble is that not only are the adopted children being taught that homosexual relationships are normal, but by example, so are the other 500 children in the school. They are being immersed in the secular culture of the day at a purportedly Roman Catholic school. Mercy, Lord Jesus.

God saves.