Substitute "Parents Day" for Mother's/Father's Day?

[DJofSD]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers

Matter of fact, let's just deny the need for parents, in any sense of the word. Just cede all sense of duty and caring to the state.

[Tom]

Nanny Day

[PaceAdvantage]

At first blush, it's pretty frightening to read the United States Government presenting such an argument...but...that's who the people want as President...so this is what they get...

[TJDave]

frightening

In what way?

[DJofSD]

It's frightening b/c is presents politics as more important than biology, culture and life experience.

[Tom]

Shades of the Hitler youth.....sounds much closer that that than America.

[PaceAdvantage]

In what way?Good one...I laughed...

[TJDave]

Good one...I laughed...

Seriously, why are you frightened?

[mostpost]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers

Matter of fact, let's just deny the need for parents, in any sense of the word. Just cede all sense of duty and caring to the state.
We can always count on you conservatives to ignore scientific evidence in favor of ignorance. Children raised by same sex couples are as well adjusted as children raised in more traditional homes. This is borne out both by empirical studies and by my personal observation. Two gay men who are friends of mine have adopted three boys and are fostering a girl. I assure you their kids can be just as annoying as the children of my hetero friends.

But what is more troubling to me is your second sentence. Where in this brief does it say that the state should take over the raising of our children. It says-and this is backed up by the evidence-that two loving parents are the optimum for raising a child, and the gender of the parents is not of particular importance.

Nor are biological factors. Or do you think that adoptive parents can not be good parents.

[mostpost]

Shades of the Hitler youth.....sounds much closerTO that than America.
FTFY, but only so I could destroy your argument, as always.

Apparently your boss came in while you were posting and caused you to mistype. If you belonged to a union we could protect you from such evil.

Back to your Hitler Youth nonsense. Nothing in the DOJ brief suggest that children be given over to the state to be raised. The brief suggests that while a traditional marriage is an excellent way to raise children, there are alternatives that work equally well. The fact that these alternatives exist does not in any way disparage heterosexual relationships or marriage. If you think they do, the problem lies with you.

[mostpost]

Seriously, why are you frightened?
He is a conservative. FRIGHTENED IS WHAT THEY ARE.

[BlueShoe]

Matter of fact, let's just deny the need for parents, in any sense of the word. Just cede all sense of duty and caring to the state.
But of course, destroy the family and make it "parent neutral, gender neutral." This is the goal of the Bolsheviks, eliminate the family and turn the children into mindless, obediant lackeys of the all poweful State, good little Comrades.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Where in this brief does it say that the state should take over the raising of our children. It says-and this is backed up by the evidence-that two loving parents are the optimum for raising a child, and the gender of the parents is not of particular importance.

...

I have to admit that when I read it (sort of), I just figured I missed the connection between what it seemed the wrangling was over and the "nanny state" label. Admittedly I breezed over it when I realized it was another account of the fight over the "proper role of gays", or maybe the fair quoted synopsis would be the fight over the "proper construct of family."

It seems like a true "nanny state" would take the position that there is a defined and solely acceptable construct of family, not loosen that construct to essentially opine that a family can be a family without a rigid state sanctioned definition based upon genders to be adhered to.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...and caused you to mistype. ....

You really need to stop badgering people on their spelling. It took all my restraint not to badger you over confusing "dessert" for "desert" yesterday. After you raked Lambo over the coals and never miss a chance to do so in general - usually just a few hours before you come with some wacky misspelling yourself - it gets hard not to waste the board space and bandwidth tossing it back at you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Seriously, why are you frightened?To be clear, I stated "it's frightening," not "it frightens me" or "I'm frightened by this."

To me at least, there's a difference.

[PaceAdvantage]

He is a conservative. FRIGHTENED IS WHAT THEY ARE.Not of community organizers masquerading as Presidents...besides, we're all packing heat...what is there to be frightened of?

[mostpost]

You really need to stop badgering people on their spelling. It took all my restraint not to badger you over confusing "dessert" for "desert" yesterday. After you raked Lambo over the coals and never miss a chance to do so in general - usually just a few hours before you come with some wacky misspelling yourself - it gets hard not to waste the board space and bandwidth tossing it back at you.
You've got it all wrong. I was not badgering him over his spelling. I was badgering him over his continually posting at work. All while he is complaining about other people being anchors.

[PaceAdvantage]

At least he has a job...tough to be an anchor in that regard...

[delayjf]

Seriously, why are you frightened?
Just another rock in the slippery slope of moral decay of a nation, that's all. Another left wing attack on the traditional family.

He is a conservative. FRIGHTENED IS WHAT THEY ARE.
He's a liberal, amoral is what they are.

[Tom]

Spelling is the only point mostie can argue.
When you are wrong 99% of the time, you take what you can get. :lol: