What are Progressive Values?

LOL! No, no term was 'stolen'.

Marriages and civil unions were not equal in the benefits they offered those who entered them.

 

The reason why you and most Americans are confused is because those who identify as being progressives today aren't really progressives but mostly came from the radical left from the 1960's and 70's. At first they were called the "New Left" after adopting cultural-marxism and started to slither into our colleges and schools and into the Democrat party.

When the true liberal base of the Democrat party fled the Democrat party during the 1970's and seeked refuge with in the GOP and would become known as "neoconservatives" the radical "New Left" hijacked name "liberal." As soon as they dirtied the liberal name during the 1970's and 1980's they hijacked the label of being "progressives." Look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus today, it's not made up of real liberals but Marxist, internationalist socialist and other extreme radical leftist including even a few Maoist.

True progressives prided themselves on their applications of emerging social sciences and scientific management techniques, believing that through science, societies ills could be cured. That included the scientific study of races and ethnicities and who made good Americans and who weren't good Americans. That would be the progressives Dillingham Commission < http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dillingham.html > that resulted in strict immigration policies that were enforced until 1965 when radical leftist yelled that America was a racist country and it's immigration policies were racist. Which led to the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that was all just a lie that open the flood gates from third world people to start flooding America.

True progressives are American nationalist. Most were racist like President Woodrow Wilson who was also a progressive. Those who call themselves progressives today are something else hiding behind the progressive label. That's why so many are confused.

But I digress.

 

Chinese culture is far beyond our own...

&#20320;&#20250;&#35828;&#33889;&#33796;&#36890;&#35805;&#21527;&#65311;

 

And nor should they be. Marriage is designed for the support of families.

Gay marriage is designed for the encouragement of sodomy.

 

Marriage, when I was a boy, was not legal for homosexuals, at any country on Earth.

When Holland became the first, I figured Americans were too smart to allow it in this country.

That said, I am an ultra fair person.

I had a chance as a voter to speak. I voted for homosexuals to have civil unions. Why do that? So they had benefits. I don't care what they do at home. I prefer they do it at home in fact. I am not a fan of homosexual love on TV. In my city, it is not a problem since I never see them doing it on the city sidewalk.

Their thanks for my help was to be rude about it. I was aghast when we changed the constitution to see them attacking the constitution of CA. In the state courts they lost. They lost in the state supreme court. Then they took it to the feds.

To hell with them if they want to be so ungrateful.

 

Homosexuals need outside help just to have children. Really, as an adult, the woman though legally protected, is the less innocent of the 3 parties. Those who look up law on marriage, even back to the ancient romans, learn the child has the most to lose. Men can divorce the woman so the child is most in need of protection by law.

 

All human tend towards "authoritarianism" when they feel disaffected, because all humans want to believe that they are in control of their own lives and circumstances. The very existence of a political opposition, negates this however. As long as two people think differently, humanity has been caught in a tug of war that it no longer has even any remote interest in trying to solve

 

"Value Freedom" is meaningless rhetoric.

The state will win. The state always wins. What happens when one government falls? Another is created immediately. "The State" is a phoenix you cannot kill.

"Oppressive" is subjective.

No, I prefer single-payer because it potentially exerts the ultimate downward pressure on costs.

Seems to me that you confuse money with freedom. Money is debt backed. Debt is an infringement upon freedom. If you believed in freedom, you would burn your money to liberate the person who is indebted to you and set off for the woods alone and reject civilization. Since you are on the internet and not in the woods, I assume you do not support freedom.

 

Yes, indeed! And that includes gay families.

So straight couples who engage in oral and anal sex are gay?

You'd better call a newspaper, m'am! That could be HUGE!

 

So what?

So what?

Amazingly, I don't get that impression of you at all.

Again: marriages conveyed more benefits to the contracted parties than civil unions did. What's confusing you about that?

Breaking: that's how our justice system works.

Film at 11: people are sometimes rude.

They wanted their civil rights. In terms of marriage, they now have them.

This makes you unhappy.

Too damned bad.

 

Gays can't create families, they can only assemble them out of spare parts.

And they do it to feed their narcissism, not out of love.

 

Progressives have no values-they were shot off in the Russian revolution.

 

I think r/K is quite plausible. And times like these lead to too many r's.

 

Increasing the percent of the population who can marry should help that problem.

But, the most important aspect has to do with parenting. And, I agree that we're seeing a lot of poor parenting today. I wonder how many families actually sit down and eat dinner together, etc.

I suspect the major hit came when wages became so low that the average family is required to have both parents working outside the home. This even puts pressure on parents to get their babies into child care. The result is more significant than just the hours of contact lost, since when working parents pick up the kids from child care, school, etc. and arrive at home, their energy for parenting has been seriously reduced.

Yet, YOU are worried about what's in the pants of the parents!! Sorry. I do NOT see that as the issue with families today. The wheels came off under hetero-only marriage law.

 

Sure because people thinking humanity needs their DNA in the gene pool are being altruistic.

 

A lesbian couple can have kids twice as fast as any hetero couple.

And, your comment about narcissism is just ad hom from the cheap seats.

 

But, of course, gays can create familes and do so out of love all the time.

Why try and pretend otherwise?

 

How can two men make a baby?

 

They can't. What a stupid question.

Do you need basic biology explained to you, m'am?

 

Utter and total nonsense.

Read Episcopal cannon.

The central point of religious marriage has to do with the two who are married.

Your assumption that state marriage is more about the family is totally unsupportable.

And, note that states marry couples without any regard to their ability, intent or qualifications as parents.

 

But the children will not be part of a natural family but an artificial one.

And homosexuals are significantly more narcissistic than normal people. This is well documented in the literature and is also true from my personal experience.

There is a rising tide of narcissism in the US in general, and this both causes and is caused by acceptance of homosexuals as normal.

 

First of all, WHAT children?? Marriage licenses don't require any intent or capability for marriage. And, that is obviously not some new idea.

Second of all, hetero couples have kids who are not biological. So, why would this be seen as an issue for same sex couples?

Third of all, same sex couples CAN have children that are biological to one of the parents - which is also a characteristic of children in hetero marriages where sperm or egg donation is involved. So, again, what's the justification for seeing this as an issue for same sex couples??

Fourth, what's wrong with adoption??? My sister has an adopted daughter as well as a son who is biological to her and her husband. Are you going to tell me that's a PROBLEM???


And, your "narcissism" thing is just pure ignorance and bigotry.


Think before you hate.

 

The literature! Hilarious. We have a research psychologist here! Was that published in Homophobe Monthly? LOL

 

I think you didn't type what you meant to say here.

And it is recognized as suboptimal.

You are depriving the child of his mother.

At least your sister's daughter has a woman for a role model.

No it is not. Homosexual narcissism was recognized by Freud himself, and has been verified in many published studies.

For instance;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20063233

 

Lets be clear. Allowing poor couples to have children is allowing children to be raised in a suboptimal family. Lots of research on poverty and its effects on children