Book with two moms returns to elementary school library

There are 20 comments on the www.proudparenting.com story from Jan 16, 2013, titled Book with two moms returns to elementary school library. In it, www.proudparenting.com reports that:

The ACLU of Utah defended the book "In Our Mothers' House" by Patricia Polacco, after it was removed from the Davis School District's library shelves...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.proudparenting.com.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#197 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
actually that angry troll fraud does attack EVERYONE the same way too...
pay more attention and maybe you can control him...
It's not my job to "control" other posters. If you have a problem with someone, you can either handle it, or ignore it, or report it. Don't expect ME to take care of it for you.
straight shooter wrote:
chicken or the egg.. I would suggest that rose and mona make people angry just to play their game, the game you clearly fell for...
I haven't spoken to either one of them. I don't even know what "game" you're talking about, and I don't care. I'm not here to make sure everyone else gets along.

If you're being dragged into flame wars, and you continue to engage them and respond, then YOU are the one who "fell for" their bait. It has nothing to do with me.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#198 Jan 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not my job to "control" other posters. If you have a problem with someone, you can either handle it, or ignore it, or report it. Don't expect ME to take care of it for you.
<quoted text>
I haven't spoken to either one of them. I don't even know what "game" you're talking about, and I don't care. I'm not here to make sure everyone else gets along.
If you're being dragged into flame wars, and you continue to engage them and respond, then YOU are the one who "fell for" their bait. It has nothing to do with me.
its fine with me, but for the record, this was YOUR post i responded to:
"Secondly, how Mona may feel about you will be based on her experiences of YOUR comments and behavior. She isn't simply slandering ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE, or ALL MALES, or ALL VERMONTERS."

so you did a 180 from your last post...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#199 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
RANDOM samples...
Objective evidence to confirm subjective self reporting?
Ya know...SCIENCE!!!!!
What job did you have at GE dude...
its pretty evident you are a fraud since you wont answer...
Exactly how does a random sample control variables?
AzAdam

United States

#200 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope instead we ENCOURAGE people not to be single via marriage and its benefits...
Right. And we should. And we don't pretend that everyone is raised in a 2 parent household. A book featuring a single parent family in a library is not cause for concern. That IS the topic, right?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#201 Jan 18, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly how does a random sample control variables?
the variable of bias?
I think even your 4th grade education would be enough to help you with that...
but your stupidity has shocked me before...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#202 Jan 18, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. And we should.
so then you agree our motivation to do so for those who do not meet this goal is lower so the need to offer the benefits is then justified?
AzAdam

United States

#203 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so then you agree our motivation to do so for those who do not meet this goal is lower so the need to offer the benefits is then justified?
No. I didn't not agree to that. That was the topic of many threads on gay marriage. This is about a library book portraying a same sex family.

You can explain to me why you think an un married same sex couple is more advantageous than a married same sex couple as it pertains to raising that couples children if you like, but you will be off topic and wrong.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#204 Jan 18, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
This is about a library book portraying a same sex family.
okay. Is it your position that only the right (conservatives) want thing not available in schools?

If so, I would ask you to review this thread and see how many on the left despise the idea of a book on creationism being in the library...

BTW, I once lived in AZ, and its 10 degrees here, so I am a little jealous...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#205 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
the variable of bias?
I think even your 4th grade education would be enough to help you with that...
but your stupidity has shocked me before...
Just as I suspected.... you don't have the fainest clue. A "variable" is anything that can potentially affect the results.

How does a random sample control the variables? IT DOESN'T.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#206 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
okay. Is it your position that only the right (conservatives) want thing not available in schools?
If so, I would ask you to review this thread and see how many on the left despise the idea of a book on creationism being in the library...
BTW, I once lived in AZ, and its 10 degrees here, so I am a little jealous...
I'd be willing to bet that NO ONE despises the idea of a book on creationism being in the library. Wanna take a "random sample" and find out? LMFAO@you
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#207 Jan 18, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as I suspected.... you don't have the fainest clue. A "variable" is anything that can potentially affect the results.
How does a random sample control the variables? IT DOESN'T.
always a step ahead of you...

so I guess you missed where I already told YOU that?

or are you being fraudulent?

I honestly cant tell the difference between your lying and your incompetence...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#208 Jan 18, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as I suspected.... you don't have the fainest clue. A "variable" is anything that can potentially affect the results.
How does a random sample control the variables? IT DOESN'T.
bias doe snot effect the result?
are you dumb or lying here?

what do you make of the "bias variable"?
"Selection bias is a statistical bias in which there is an error in choosing the individuals or groups to take part in a scientific study.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The term "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account then certain conclusions drawn may be wrong."

my goodness, you are too dumb to play this game with me...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#209 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
its fine with me, but for the record, this was YOUR post i responded to:
"Secondly, how Mona may feel about you will be based on her experiences of YOUR comments and behavior. She isn't simply slandering ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE, or ALL MALES, or ALL VERMONTERS."
so you did a 180 from your last post...
I wanted to reply to that, since I didn't think I did a 180, so I went back to see what Mona has been posting about you.

SHE DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR ON THIS THREAD.

Are you just lying? Are you THAT confused? Do you want me to follow you ALL around the internet, documenting unfair abuses against you?

Why do you bring any of this up? What is it you want me to DO about this issue? FIND Mona and fight with her FOR you? Kiss your boo-boos? NONE OF THIS IS MY PROBLEM.

What I was wondering with my original post, is whether she is "attacking" you (on other threads, obviously) because of specific things that you've SAID, or whether she is just randomly coming after you, unprovoked, and attacking unrelated characteristics about yourself, such as your skin color or your geographical origin. Is she just after you because you belong to some group she hates? Or is she attacking YOU, because of YOUR specific comments?

Now, I WAS able to find a "Jane" on this thread, under the name Jane Dodo. But SHE didn't appear until page 4. You, by contrast, were here since page 1, suggesting that teaching the reality that gay people ACTUALLY form families (which we actually DO) is comparable to teaching a single religious belief out of the tens of thousands that exist.

When Jane began pointing out the issue of the separation of church and state, you replied by accusing her of being part of a cult… in fact, suggesting that ALL gay people are a “cult”.

You said things to her like “Dumb de dumb dumb” and “hay shape-shifter”. You were DEFINITELY the instigator in anything uncivil. Don’t forget that the internet is written in ink, not pencil. You went on to say OTHER derogatory things like “ooooh get out the cat claws you little kitty...meow” and calling her an “ignorant angry childish freakshow a-hole fraud”. NONE of this was earned by her, not that I could see.

If you want civil and courteous conversations with people, it’s easy. I do it all the time. If you want to fight and bicker and call names back and forth, that’s easy, too. But you have to WANT it. You have to egg it on. And you HAVE been, as far as I can tell.

Don’t bitch to ME that you’re having problems with other people. I don’t know what you expect ME to do about it. Keep a civil tongue, and make your points with SPECIFICS. This is more than I’ve been able to get out of you. Everything you’ve said to me has LACKED specifics, in favor of vague pronunciations about “differences” that are NEVER enumerated, even when you’re directly asked to provide them.

If you insist on being vague and unclear, then expect people to be frustrated with you. If you insist on being catty and insulting, then expect the same back.

And above all, solve your OWN conflicts with other posters.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#210 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you do know that every study on which you would rely was a self reported survey of a hand picked sample, right?
we both already agreed this is a new "theory"...
Yes, which is why until we have solid verifiable information from a study using standard scientific methodology there is no basis to the claim children do worse when raised by married same-sex parents.

There HAVE been valid studies on children raised by same-sex parents which meet the standards of scientific methodology; just not married same-sex parents. The simple reason being it takes decades to follow a child from infancy until they are a young adult to properly assess their performance in school, social skills, mental health status, etc.

I imagine we'll have some definitive studies in another decade.

Since there no logical reason to believe children raised by married same-sex couples will turn out any worse than children raised by unmarried same-sex couples, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt just like everyone else gets.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#211 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
okay, but it applies to the EP analysis...
as hernadez did...
its a rational distinction that would (for you I will say COULD) satisfy rational basis review...
also, I gave some more thought to my position yestereday (to your credit) that the scotus will rely SOLELY on federalism, and back peddle a bit to say there will have to be some enhancement to that review based upon EP just as the first circuit did...but as we agreed about the first circuit, the two issues will be fully intertwined...and the EP analysis alone will be fond not to "carry the day".
And i will add that the scotus threw me a big curveball with obamacare...while I always thought it was a tax, i didn't not think the court could (or would) change it to be a tax since that was not presented...
I thought the court was going to kick it out after finding no commerce power to support it...
in short, I have been wrong about the scotus recently...
I agree, the court COULD use that as a rational basis to deny an E.P. claim. It's a pretty low bar to meet and just about anything COULD be used by the court if that's how they want to rule; I just don't think they will.

I think the court sees which way the country is going on this issue and wants to issue a ruling which keeps pace with that change, which is why I DON'T expect any sweeping ruling either way on either case.

After reconsidering what you said (my bone to you), I don't think they will grant any suspect status in the DOMA case and will find some quasi-enhanced rational basis to deal with the E.P. question but rely primarily on federalism to overturn section 3. That gives federal recognition to married same-sex couples, but puts the breaks on the next eventual lawsuit which WILL directly challenge the Baker precedent.

The Prop 8 case will be limited to California either way, even if they should uphold it (I still don't think they will); so we're looking at a state-by-state battle for the next few years at least.

I will still celebrate that as a victory, and it doesn't change my overall outlook on this issue. The demographics of the nation are moving in one direction and one direction only on this issue.
Popping in for a tad

Watsonville, CA

#212 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nope instead we ENCOURAGE people not to be single via marriage and its benefits...
Maybe that's why/how YOU "ENCOURAGE people", but you really need to get over this decidedly arrogant "royal We" thing you've got going on.
Kids get married because momma and her shaman taught her not to give it up without a ring.
Popping in for a tad

Watsonville, CA

#213 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
says you. and I say that two mothers can fill the role of a father is equally imaginary...
as is believing genetics is irrelevant...
so we track the genes of dogs and ponies as meaningful but with people, who cares?
Evidence to the contrary:



Lots of others, but he's been on YouTube.
Popping in for a tad

Watsonville, CA

#214 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you do know that every study on which you would rely was a self reported survey of a hand picked sample, right?
we both already agreed this is a new "theory"...
If you have or not, that doesn't change the result that any discussion based upon it remains conjectural and speculative.

"Objection, Your Honor: Conjecture"
Popping in for a tad

Watsonville, CA

#215 Jan 18, 2013
This thread has become one of the best discussions I've read in all my time on TOPIX.

If only all of them were this good.
AzAdam

United States

#216 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
okay. Is it your position that only the right (conservatives) want thing not available in schools?
If so, I would ask you to review this thread and see how many on the left despise the idea of a book on creationism being in the library...
BTW, I once lived in AZ, and its 10 degrees here, so I am a little jealous...
No. Of course the left oversteps freedom of speech sometimes too. 75 here today. Lovely.

I have a book of creation stories. All different kinds from all different religions and cultures. The Adam and Eve story is in there too and is given no special acknowledgement. So the kids know its a fairy tale like all the others.

2 moms is quite real. As are two dads (me obviously). So the analogy is a little sketchy but I see your point.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Iran Solved Its Gay Marriage Problem 19 min Be auty QUEEN 29
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 22 min Blackburn 32,407
News Shop owner will deny - openly gay' customers 27 min Brian_G 78
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr tongangodz 3,196
News Conservative Columnist Guy Benson Says He's Gay 2 hr david traversa 9
News Gay marriage advocates in Ohio split on vote th... (Feb '14) 2 hr The Voice of Reality 11
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 2 hr Belle Sexton 178
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 3 hr Belle Sexton 59,654
News Woman Files Federal Suit Against All Gays 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 45
Are the mods fair and balanced? 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 851
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 hr Terra Firma 20,750
More from around the web