Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not obvious to anthropologists, the "obvious natural plan" is a much larger extended family where children are raised by close friends and relatives living in close proximity. The American dream of Man, Woman and Kids (what most mean when they reference nuclear family) is very new to human society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chicken and egg question. The extended, primarily consanguineal family, was necessary because the "economy" required both local presence of males and for males to roam from the local family to produce. This was the practical answer, not necessarily the natural answer. As technology advanced and permitted the nuclear family to remain intact, that was a practical answer as well. So which was the "natural" plan and which more a matter of expediency? Or did the plan "evolve" from the consanguineal family to nuclear family and they are BOTH "natural plans".

What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural, and at the root of many of our current sociological problems ranging from education to crime.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're against gay male couples raising children I take it.. Hahahah.. (What is the text equivalent of Ed McMahon's trademark zinger noise?)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're against gay male couples raising children I take it.. Hahahah.. (What is the text equivalent of Ed McMahon's trademark zinger noise?)

[/ QUOTE ]

HEEEEYYYYY-OOOOOOO

?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural, and at the root of many of our current sociological problems ranging from education to crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

In many cultures children were raised by the women until puberty, and subsequently raised by the men. If you want to talk about human history, it takes a village.

But there's no such thing as "natural," period. If you want to use a term like "morally stable" or some other [censored] subjective euphemism, that's fine. But don't try to use scientific-sounding words when science rejects everything you say. Not only is the nuclear family a relatively new invention, but the evidence suggests that even monogamy is something of an aberration. You're talking about your religion and how it's practiced in the modern day, nothing more.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pro-automatic weapons ban

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, automatic weapons have been basically banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. So I don't think this is really an issue... or did you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

he almost surely meant he is pro-assault weapons ban, but don't worry, he doesn't know what assault weapons are either.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems

[/ QUOTE ]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ZlNmY4MzkxYTA=

"Intrade, the pay-to-play prediction market, shows a 60 percent to 36 percent chance of a Democratic victory next year, alongside a 12 percent chance of a GOP House and a 6.6 percent probability of a GOP Senate."

zomg total nightmare

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pro-automatic weapons ban

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, automatic weapons have been basically banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. So I don't think this is really an issue... or did you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

he almost surely meant he is pro-assault weapons ban, but don't worry, he doesn't know what assault weapons are either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know what he probably meant, and my post was a sarcastic way of pointing that out.

It never ceases to amaze me how knee-jerk, anti-RKBA liberals are duped into thinking so-called "assault weapons" are machine guns, or are otherwise functionally different from semi-auto firearms not arbitrarily labeled as "assault weapons." (Hint to victim-disarmers: there is no such thing as an "assault weapon.")

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Stock market record highs
Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month
100,000 jobs created last month
Core inflation stable
Consumer spending up
Construction and housing starts up

The only negative I was oil at $80 a barrel, but then even with gas prices reflecting that, a lower percentage of income will be spent on gas than in 1980.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... you're promoting the changes that have happened since the Democrats got control of Congress?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything about how we raise children is decidedly unnatural.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural plan was also for you and your family to be naked eating berries in a cave.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural plan was also for gravity to work [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

OK, now that I guess we've got that cleared up...what point are you trying to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

That the argument that we should only allow heterosexual marriage because it's "natural" is ridiculous. Almost everything about our modern lives is unnatural. Practically nobody, however, is for banning those other unnatural things, nor should they support banning "unnatural" marriages.

edit: this doesn't really help the dem vs. repub debate because neither is going to do anything to prevent a prohibition on gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it's not my argument or stance but I don't have a big problem with it either. I also don't think it would be a pivotal issue for most voters. So I wouldn't rule out any party because of their stance (regardless of which) on that one narrow issue.