If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   John Huntsman's recent call for same-sex marriage is essentially an unwitting declaration of the rights of well-to-do gays to buy children in the same way as any married heterosexual couple looking to adopt   (americanthinker.com) divider line 269
    More: Fail, same-sex marriages, American conservatives, heterosexuals, gays, Jon Huntsman  
•       •       •

2140 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2013 at 4:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-25 09:18:52 AM  
Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.
 
2013-02-25 09:29:47 AM  
our own Constitution has a firm basis in the Thirteenth Amendment to ban many of the parenting practices encouraged by same-sex marriage.

Equating being raised by same-sex parents to slavery? Well that's certainly a new one.
 
2013-02-25 09:31:11 AM  
"Saying nothing of children's rights to a mother and father..."

 - quizzical dog

"In other words, a man's right to marry another man is actually a man's right to exclude the woman who bore his child from the household where the child grows up."

 - Bad news for surrogate mothers, and all adopters

"Neither libertarians nor the left can speak out to object, because they have been bought for thirty pieces of silver by the same gay elite that now feels entitled to buy out the right wing."

 - gay elite?
 - dude, what?

"The Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959, Article 7, states that wherever possible, children must be raised by their father and mother -- this is because of the long, ugly history of infants being bought and sold, going back to the slavery era and stretching into antiquity."

 - yeah, they went there

"Because of the way the debate has played out in the United States, full marriage equality means that same-sex couples are entitled to children that they've acquired, inevitably, through financial exchange, and states have no way of prioritizing the natural pathway of human beings from conception into the custody of their fathers and mothers."

 - again, bad news for all adoptions
 - and divorce, and children out of wedlock, and when tragedy befalls one parent, and...

"Children raised by the parents who conceived them enter life as free human beings, endowed with a paternal and maternal lineage."

 - waving little American flags and wearing tricorner hats, straight out of the womb!  Puhlease.
 
2013-02-25 09:47:59 AM  

Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.


Well why not?  They've been telling you what you think as a liberal for years.  They might as well infrom you as to your immoral designs as a gay.

I mean, how else are you going to know?  Otherwise you might blow all that money on fashionable clothing or home fixtures and such.  You know you should really thank them, like I thank them for letting me know how much I hate America or whatever.
 
2013-02-25 09:55:50 AM  
Doesn't it get boring being constantly on the wrong side of EVERY issue?
 
2013-02-25 09:56:23 AM  

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.

Well why not?  They've been telling you what you think as a liberal for years.  They might as well infrom you as to your immoral designs as a gay.

I mean, how else are you going to know?  Otherwise you might blow all that money on fashionable clothing or home fixtures and such.  You know you should really thank them, like I thank them for letting me know how much I hate America or whatever.


But that means I have to waste my big gay disposable income on some little snot bag.  No thanks!

Even the property argument fails.  Children are a terrible property investment.  The ongoing, overall cost of that capital is greater than the value of the capital itself.  I don't need a deduction that bad.
 
2013-02-25 10:06:00 AM  

Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.


I always assumed gay men wanted to adopt children so they could trade them like Pokemon cards.  Is that wrong?
 
2013-02-25 10:06:25 AM  

Diogenes: But that means I have to waste my big gay disposable income on some little snot bag.  No thanks!

Even the property argument fails.  Children are a terrible property investment.  The ongoing, overall cost of that capital is greater than the value of the capital itself.  I don't need a deduction that bad.


This is the thought that always comes to mind when people drag out the old trope, "but who will take care of you when you're old?"  Well, my money will, hopefully.  You know, the money I didn't blow raising a kid.

The other thought that comes to mind, of course, is "nursing homes are overflowing with people who had kids for that exact reason".
 
2013-02-25 10:12:01 AM  

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: But that means I have to waste my big gay disposable income on some little snot bag.  No thanks!

Even the property argument fails.  Children are a terrible property investment.  The ongoing, overall cost of that capital is greater than the value of the capital itself.  I don't need a deduction that bad.

This is the thought that always comes to mind when people drag out the old trope, "but who will take care of you when you're old?"  Well, my money will, hopefully.  You know, the money I didn't blow raising a kid.

The other thought that comes to mind, of course, is "nursing homes are overflowing with people who had kids for that exact reason".


Well, I try not to think about it as an either-or.  Especially as I age, am unpartnered, and will not have any children (in all likelihood) - I'm starting to consider what I may need in my advanced age.

People should be free to make choices.

Although I think having children exclusively for the purpose of caring for you is pretty:

1)  Risky
2)  Twisted

...for the same "reasons" the author of this nonsense points out.  Then you're not creating a free and independent life by having a child - you're creating a servant.
 
2013-02-25 10:18:28 AM  
I do so enjoy getting the dumbest thing I'll read all day out of the way first thing in the morning

/except for the lingering headache
 
2013-02-25 10:20:19 AM  

mrshowrules: Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.

I always assumed gay men wanted to adopt children so they could trade them like Pokemon cards.  Is that wrong?


No. We do battle them like Pokemon, though. I may mine wear a turtle shell and water canon.
 
2013-02-25 10:21:16 AM  

Diogenes: ...for the same "reasons" the author of this nonsense points out.  Then you're not creating a free and independent life by having a child - you're creating a servant.


At least servants have a financial interest in taking care of you.

If I had kids they'd probably toss me in an old age home the minute they learned that a stripper half their age was getting everything.
 
2013-02-25 10:49:35 AM  

ginandbacon: Doesn't it get boring being constantly on the wrong side of EVERY issue?


That's the beauty of being one of these a-holes.  They're never WRONG.  Sure they may lose a battle on an issue, but they are all collectively waiting for their grand "I told you so" moment (that never comes).

Free the slaves?  It will be the ruin of civilization.

End segregation?  Blacks will start thinking they should run things.

Let gays marry?  God will surely drown us all in hellfire!

Or not.
 
2013-02-25 10:51:30 AM  

gilgigamesh: Diogenes: ...for the same "reasons" the author of this nonsense points out.  Then you're not creating a free and independent life by having a child - you're creating a servant.

At least servants have a financial interest in taking care of you.

If I had kids they'd probably toss me in an old age home the minute they learned that a stripper half their age was getting everything.


lulz
 
2013-02-25 10:55:39 AM  

Ambivalence: Free the slaves? It will be the ruin of civilization.

End segregation? Blacks will start thinking they should run things.

Let gays marry? God will surely drown us all in hellfire!


Welp, one outta three ain't bad.
media.nj.com
 
2013-02-25 10:59:31 AM  

kid_icarus: mrshowrules: Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.

I always assumed gay men wanted to adopt children so they could trade them like Pokemon cards.  Is that wrong?

No. We do battle them like Pokemon, though. I may mine wear a turtle shell and water canon.


Is your club open to straight parents? I would like to join.
 
2013-02-25 11:00:44 AM  

kid_icarus: mrshowrules: Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.

I always assumed gay men wanted to adopt children so they could trade them like Pokemon cards.  Is that wrong?

No. We do battle them like Pokemon, though. I may mine wear a turtle shell and water canon.


I'm looking to hire some inexpensive Asians to level them up for me.
 
2013-02-25 11:40:36 AM  
TFA: The Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959, Article 7, states that wherever possible, children must be raised by their father and mother -- this is because of the long, ugly history of infants being bought and sold, going back to the slavery era and stretching into antiquity.

No, it doesn't:
7  The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.
  The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.
Moreover, are we to understand from their endorsement of this article that the American Thinker is opposed to private schools, and is in favor of more free public parks?
 
2013-02-25 11:47:17 AM  

Theaetetus: TFA: The Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959, Article 7, states that wherever possible, children must be raised by their father and mother -- this is because of the long, ugly history of infants being bought and sold, going back to the slavery era and stretching into antiquity.

No, it doesn't:
7  The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.
  The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.
Moreover, are we to understand from their endorsement of this article that the American Thinker is opposed to private schools, and is in favor of more free public parks?


You're fighting way outside American Thinker's weight class.
 
2013-02-25 11:51:00 AM  

Theaetetus: TFA: The Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959, Article 7, states that wherever possible, children must be raised by their father and mother -- this is because of the long, ugly history of infants being bought and sold, going back to the slavery era and stretching into antiquity.

No, it doesn't:
7  The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.
  The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.
Moreover, are we to understand from their endorsement of this article that the American Thinker is opposed to private schools, and is in favor of more free public parks?


Sure, it doesn't look like their citation bears any resemblance to what they quote.  Because you're reading what the words say.

To get American Thinkers' point, you have to look past the words and read the article with your gut.
 
2013-02-25 12:08:49 PM  

exick: Ambivalence: Free the slaves? It will be the ruin of civilization.

End segregation? Blacks will start thinking they should run things.

Let gays marry? God will surely drown us all in hellfire!

Welp, one outta three ain't bad.
[media.nj.com image 380x266]


I know but they say it like it's a BAD thing.

People is people.
 
2013-02-25 12:59:31 PM  
anyone point out that it's Jon Huntsmans, subby. As in Jonathan not Jack

/never understood why Jack was a nickname for John
//kinda like Jim/James I guess
///The FR on this op-ed was...interesting. Apparently Huntsman isn't a conservative or a republican. Also mormons are secret jews or something
////super derp
 
2013-02-25 01:02:39 PM  

Ambivalence: ginandbacon: Doesn't it get boring being constantly on the wrong side of EVERY issue?

That's the beauty of being one of these a-holes.  They're never WRONG.  Sure they may lose a battle on an issue, but they are all collectively waiting for their grand "I told you so" moment (that never comes).

Free the slaves?  It will be the ruin of civilization.

End segregation?  Blacks will start thinking they should run things.

Let gays marry?  God will surely drown us all in hellfire!

Or not.


I would like to point out that those three stances (freeing slaves, ending segregation and letting gays/inter-racial couples marry) are all very much conservative stances. Not herp-derp TEA PARTY YARRRRRR stances, but, you know, real conservative stances. Huntsman was very much right when he penned that op-ed. I hope he gets more credit as time goes on. I'd like him to be the face/voice of the new GOP

Granted, I just want the party of Lincoln to come back somewhere. Democrats are kinda close but they're too big government for that
 
2013-02-25 01:09:19 PM  

somedude210: I would like to point out that those three stances (freeing slaves, ending segregation and letting gays/inter-racial couples marry) are all very much conservative stances. Not herp-derp TEA PARTY YARRRRRR stances, but, you know, real conservative stances. Huntsman was very much right when he penned that op-ed. I hope he gets more credit as time goes on. I'd like him to be the face/voice of the new GOP

Granted, I just want the party of Lincoln to come back somewhere. Democrats are kinda close but they're too big government for that


If that is to be, I fear it will be many years down the road.  Right now the GOP is defining themselves EXCLUSIVELY in reaction to democratic positions.  Meaning anything dems like, they hate and anything dems are against, they fight tooth and nail for.  They have no regard for cause and effect or consequences.  They're just in it to beat Dems and that is how their base likes it.

Until that changes, there will be no "new voice" in the GOP.  Every voice, no matter how fresh and novell the face, will be the same stupid, reactionary BS.
 
2013-02-25 01:12:15 PM  

Ambivalence: If that is to be, I fear it will be many years down the road. Right now the GOP is defining themselves EXCLUSIVELY in reaction to democratic positions. Meaning anything dems like, they hate and anything dems are against, they fight tooth and nail for. They have no regard for cause and effect or consequences. They're just in it to beat Dems and that is how their base likes it.

Until that changes, there will be no "new voice" in the GOP. Every voice, no matter how fresh and novell the face, will be the same stupid, reactionary BS.


That's why what will happen is that our current GOP will stay the GOP but the moderates and real conservatives pull together to form the nGOP to build an actual alternative for those that want to vote but Democrats are too big government, and Republicans are too farking crazy.

/and if Huntsman can't finish the job, others will take up the mantle
//somedude210 2024
 
2013-02-25 01:27:12 PM  

somedude210: That's why what will happen is that our current GOP will stay the GOP but the moderates and real conservatives pull together to form the nGOP to build an actual alternative for those that want to vote but Democrats are too big government, and Republicans are too farking crazy.

/and if Huntsman can't finish the job, others will take up the mantle
//somedude210 2024


Dude, that is never going to happen.  Right wing voters are not going to split their vote.  Even they know that's political suicide. Until someone gets enough traction within the party to slap down the crazy in their base and turn the ship around, it will continue its downward slide.
 
2013-02-25 01:29:53 PM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: That's why what will happen is that our current GOP will stay the GOP but the moderates and real conservatives pull together to form the nGOP to build an actual alternative for those that want to vote but Democrats are too big government, and Republicans are too farking crazy.

/and if Huntsman can't finish the job, others will take up the mantle
//somedude210 2024

Dude, that is never going to happen.  Right wing voters are not going to split their vote.  Even they know that's political suicide. Until someone gets enough traction within the party to slap down the crazy in their base and turn the ship around, it will continue its downward slide.


Don't be so sure. They said the same with the Dixiecrats, they said the same about the Democrat-Republicans vs the Whigs. It happens. It takes a grand series of perfectly aligned events, but it'll happen. This is the start of the end of the modern iteration of the GOP, what rises from the ashes will be the crazy party or the conservative party. Whatever it is, the other will rise as a third party that will still have a good 5-10% of the vote
 
2013-02-25 01:38:10 PM  

somedude210: Don't be so sure. They said the same with the Dixiecrats, they said the same about the Democrat-Republicans vs the Whigs. It happens. It takes a grand series of perfectly aligned events, but it'll happen. This is the start of the end of the modern iteration of the GOP, what rises from the ashes will be the crazy party or the conservative party. Whatever it is, the other will rise as a third party that will still have a good 5-10% of the vote


The dixiecrats didn't form their own party, they (mostly) joined the GOP.
 
2013-02-25 01:39:50 PM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: Don't be so sure. They said the same with the Dixiecrats, they said the same about the Democrat-Republicans vs the Whigs. It happens. It takes a grand series of perfectly aligned events, but it'll happen. This is the start of the end of the modern iteration of the GOP, what rises from the ashes will be the crazy party or the conservative party. Whatever it is, the other will rise as a third party that will still have a good 5-10% of the vote

The dixiecrats didn't form their own party, they (mostly) joined the GOP.


you still had democrats that had to split the vote between them and the dixiecrats (now republicans)
 
2013-02-25 01:50:59 PM  

somedude210: you still had democrats that had to split the vote between them and the dixiecrats (now republicans)


Yes, but like I said, they did not form a third party, they just joined the GOP.  Now there are plenty of GOP moderates joining the democrats, or becoming "unaffiliated", but that's very VERY different than creating a third party (which is what you were sugesting might happen).
 
2013-02-25 01:55:47 PM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: you still had democrats that had to split the vote between them and the dixiecrats (now republicans)

Yes, but like I said, they did not form a third party, they just joined the GOP.  Now there are plenty of GOP moderates joining the democrats, or becoming "unaffiliated", but that's very VERY different than creating a third party (which is what you were sugesting might happen).


Fair point. I concede that I was wrong/misguided. My bad
 
2013-02-25 02:32:34 PM  
I'm just gonna put this here as a palette cleanser.

http://youtu.be/5JibZ2U3o-M
 
2013-02-25 02:32:53 PM  
Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...
 
2013-02-25 02:37:29 PM  
Steven Tyler adopted a 16 year old and made her his sex slave. Plus he got her pregnant and did cocaine while she had an abortion. I don't believe there was gay sex involved, but you never know.

Maybe that is what the author is talking about? I have no idea.
 
2013-02-25 02:37:56 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...


But you wouldn't have to have kids either if you were bisexual or heterosexual. There is nothing about being gay that implies having or not having children.
 
2013-02-25 02:43:42 PM  
Yes, American Thinker, gay people buy children as accessories.

"And over here in the corner we have a little Cambodian boy.  We were thinking of going Thai, but he didn't match the drapes."
 
2013-02-25 02:44:26 PM  

Diogenes: Bwahahahaha....

Boy do I love hearing what American Thinker says my life and my thinking are.

 
2013-02-25 02:44:59 PM  
FTFA: For all the talk of being inclusive, same-sex marriage proponents are actually promoting the exclusion of one biological parent from the custody of their own children.

This is an argument against compulsory monogamous families, not an argument against same-sex marriage. The author does not understand that. If a man could be married both to the mother of his child and another lover of any gender, this "problem" would disappear without getting rid of same-sex marriage.
 
2013-02-25 02:46:06 PM  

Somacandra: thismomentinblackhistory: Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...

But you wouldn't have to have kids either if you were bisexual or heterosexual. There is nothing about being gay that implies having or not having children.


Think of all the money I'm saving on pregnancy tests.
 
2013-02-25 02:49:46 PM  

ginandbacon: Doesn't it get boring being constantly on the wrong side of EVERY issue?


Someone has be a bad example...
 
2013-02-25 02:50:38 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Somacandra: thismomentinblackhistory: Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...

But you wouldn't have to have kids either if you were bisexual or heterosexual. There is nothing about being gay that implies having or not having children.

Think of all the money I'm saving on pregnancy tests.


And abortions.  And we liberals love our abortions!  American Thinker told me that, too.
 
2013-02-25 02:51:02 PM  
FTFA: "slavery" amounts historically to the buying, selling, and ownership of human life, including insemination, surrogacy, and commercial adoption

So the author wants to outlaw adoption? Because in a capitalist society adoption necessarily costs money--people don't broker new family relationships for free. Someone has to pay for all that paperwork and social work and managing background checks. That shiat doesn't just fall out of the sky.
 
2013-02-25 02:52:16 PM  
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-25 02:52:53 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Think of all the money I'm saving on pregnancy tests.


That just means you're putting the 'job creators' who make those out of work. Shame on you.
 
2013-02-25 02:53:12 PM  

Diogenes: thismomentinblackhistory: Somacandra: thismomentinblackhistory: Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...

But you wouldn't have to have kids either if you were bisexual or heterosexual. There is nothing about being gay that implies having or not having children.

Think of all the money I'm saving on pregnancy tests.

And abortions.  And we liberals love our abortions!  American Thinker told me that, too.


And diapers. Christ, those things are expensive. God forbid I get my boyfriend preggers. He'd be one of those cloth diaper people.
 
2013-02-25 02:55:40 PM  
How about instead of giving  American Thinkerthe attention it so craves but in no way deserves, we instead devote this thread to Mr. Huntsman's magnificent trio of daughters?

If we were playing a round of 'Fark-Marry-Kill', how would you decide?

www.theblaze.com

/ I hate this site, and will do anything I can to deprive it of clicks
// Kill (but weep while I do it), marry, fark for hour upon glorious hour
 
2013-02-25 02:56:10 PM  
Wait, American Thinker is relying on the UN's declaration of rights of the child as part of its arguments? I thought the UN was an insidious one world government plot bent on taking our freedoms. I'm sure I read that somewhere, oh yes:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh . html

Sorry no link, on my phone.
 
2013-02-25 02:57:39 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Not having kids is in my top ten awesome things about being gay...


I'm with you, brother. God bless people who do want to care for the kiddies, but I've never been one of them. It's never been something I've regretted. If I want to buy a living thing as an accessory I'd go with a house plant.
 
2013-02-25 02:58:23 PM  
I enjoy coming up with the conclusion first and figuring out the reason second as much as any one, but I think they are limiting themselves unnecessarily.  If you are going to go the whole gay marriage = child slavery you might as well go for something more creative.

Gay marriage is wrong, because it will confuse aliens visiting the planet.
 
2013-02-25 03:00:37 PM  

EvilEgg: I enjoy coming up with the conclusion first and figuring out the reason second as much as any one, but I think they are limiting themselves unnecessarily.  If you are going to go the whole gay marriage = child slavery you might as well go for something more creative.

Gay marriage is wrong, because it will confuse aliens visiting the planet.


Making us gays an effective psi-ops resistance to the eventual invasion.  Ever think of that American Thinker?!?!
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report