Book with two moms returns to elementary school library

Jan 16, 2013 Full story: www.proudparenting.com 394
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... Full Story

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#217 Jan 19, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
is that a rational distinction for why religion is not to be taught but orientation is?
so again, all that you wrote is applicable to orientation (but the choice which is DEBATABLE)
most religious people think they were born that way as well...
Teaching kids that some kids have two Moms or two dads is not debatable, it's a simple fact of life. Teaching older kids that some people are attracted only to the same gender is certainly not debatable.

And, if you believe that one can choose to completely extinguish the orientation they came into this world with, and utterly replace it with the attraction to another gender, and do this feat of magic at the ripe old ages of 12-15. then you need to explain the mechanisms that cause this.

Even in kids who have NEVER met a gay person, or read a story about same gender parents.

As to religion, if you teach religion in public schools, which one would it be? I suspect that the children of Catholics would be a bit peeved if their children learned to be wiccans, muslims, or even Baptists at their public school.

And I suspect that most protestants would be just as peeved if their children learned to be Catholic and hold reverence for the Pope.

Am I wrong?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#218 Jan 19, 2013
Popping in for a tad wrote:
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.
If people can dial back the rhetoric & personal attacks, then actual conversations can take place in spite of our differences. Yes, I've been guilty of breaking that rule too depending on who I'm responding to, but I'm getting better at ingoring (mostly) a lot of the trash talk.
Just poppin in for a tad

Watsonville, CA

#219 Jan 19, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
A very good example of "bias variable" can be found in the Regnerus survey population.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#221 Jan 20, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
You have no idea what you're talking about. None.

If one wanted to discover what percentage of white people are gay, would it make ANY SENSE AT ALL to take a random sample? You are a clueless amateur.

And thank you for pointing out EXACTLY why Regnerus' study was totally FLAWED.
Invisible Lipstick

Cummington, MA

#222 Jan 21, 2013
Popping in for a tad wrote:
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.
The devil would agree with you.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#223 Jan 22, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Mona is now Jane...
and the snark flows from thread to thread...

see that now?

and again, YOU BROUGHT IT UP...

I use overconfidence as a good defense to the liberal debate style...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#224 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>You have no idea what you're talking about. None.
If one wanted to discover what percentage of white people are gay, would it make ANY SENSE AT ALL to take a random sample? You are a clueless amateur.
And thank you for pointing out EXACTLY why Regnerus' study was totally FLAWED.
would it make sense to hand picked them you fool?

why not go to the gay bar and take a sample there you clueless idiot...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#225 Jan 22, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Teaching kids that some kids have two Moms or two dads is not debatable, it's a simple fact of life.
and saying its the same is not a fact, its your BELIEF...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#226 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
would it make sense to hand picked them you fool?
why not go to the gay bar and take a sample there you clueless idiot...
The 'clueless idiot' is YOU. Totally and completely clueless. How does a random sample control for variables? If you have a hypothesis about blue eyed people, what good would it do to survey brown eyed people? Didn't you take ANY statistics classes?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#227 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
The 'clueless idiot' is YOU. Totally and completely clueless. How does a random sample control for variables? If you have a hypothesis about blue eyed people, what good would it do to survey brown eyed people? Didn't you take ANY statistics classes?
this is dumb even for you...

random samples eliminate the bias of using only highly educated lesbians as a "sample" like many of the studies you would rely on do...

the study then doesn't speak to the GENERAL POPULATION because of it, see how that works idiot?

say, what did you do for GE?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#228 Jan 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
could you share the study that examines "married same sex" parents?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#229 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
could you share the study that examines "married same sex" parents?
As I said, I'm unaware of any current studies on married same-sex couples raising kids. That's not suprising since we've only been able to legally marry for the past 8 years. It will likely take another decade to get any scientifically valid studies.

But as I said before, there is no reason to assume children raised by married same-sex couples would fare any worse than those raised by unmarried same-sex couples. If anything, I would expect them to do better with the added legal protections and acceptance which comes from marriage.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#230 Jan 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, I'm unaware of any current studies on married same-sex couples raising kids. That's not suprising since we've only been able to legally marry for the past 8 years.
It only took seven years for you guys to find that CU's didn't work...
AzAdam

United States

#231 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
It only took seven years for you guys to find that CU's didn't work...
My kids are 7 and 8. They're doing well in school. They're happy and well adjusted. I'm convinced they're doing great. Since I have more experience than you in heading a ss couple household with kids, why not take my word for it?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#232 Jan 22, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
My kids are 7 and 8. They're doing well in school. They're happy and well adjusted. I'm convinced they're doing great. Since I have more experience than you in heading a ss couple household with kids, why not take my word for it?
if I told you all about some terrible parents that i know that are also gay, would you take my word for it?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#234 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
Mona is now Jane...
I don't really care.
straight shooter wrote:
and the snark flows from thread to thread...
see that now?
Did I mention that I don't care?

If you don't like the "snark", then don't engage those people (or person). Don't reply. Certainly don't FEED the snark by offering more of your own... "meow",“ignorant angry childish freakshow a-hole fraud”, etc. You don’t get any points for sinking to the very level that you condemn in others.
straight shooter wrote:
and again, YOU BROUGHT IT UP...
Say again? No, YOU brought up the issue of other posters attacking you (in post #123, page 6). I didn’t bring it up. I asked you more ABOUT it, because I wanted to confirm if what you were saying was true, but I didn’t initiate the conversation about your issues with Mona or Jane or anyone else.

I can’t be sure, but maybe you think I brought this up because I said “You seem to want to contribute to an environment of disdain and stigmatization of gay people”. Maybe you took this as an accusation of snark and sarcasm, and felt that it was tied to OTHER examples of snark and sarcasm that were directed against you.

But, in the interests of clarity, I was not accusing you of this behavior. I use snark and sarcasm myself occasionally. They are not always misplaced. What I was actually referring to was your general support of needless segregation for gay couples. THIS is what feeds an “environment of disdain and stigmatization of gay people”. I don’t really care HOW you deliver your message, or whether it is delivered on Topix or in civic legislation. I’m only referring to WHAT your message amounts to.

If other posters "spit" and rage and use bad language at me, I try to ignore the emotion and invective, and focus on what they are SAYING. If it turns out to be nothing but empty ad hominem, then I laugh and ignore it (you won’t catch me running to OTHER posters and whining to THEM about it). But if someone is trying to make a point, I’ll try to address it.

If you ignore the emotional content of what Mona/Jane says to you, then the gist of her point is clear. She is NOT engaging in ad hominem attacks; that is, she is not attacking you for being a male, or for being heterosexual, or for being from Vermont, or for belonging to ANY GROUP. She was simply trying to explain to you, as I have been, WHY “creationism” is not an appropriate subject to be taught in school as if it were scientific fact. However you may FEEL about gay people or gay couples, it is a FACT that they exist, and it is a FACT that they form families and raise children. It is a fact that their marriages are recognized by several states. Teaching these FACTS is completely appropriate.
straight shooter wrote:
I use overconfidence as a good defense to the liberal debate style...
I use reality. I use clarity and specificity.

And just to be clear,“liberal debate style” would be an ad hominem attack.

Let’s ignore all the pointless excess, and look at the heart of this conflict. Your point, from the very beginning of this thread, seemed to be that the gay community wants our “beliefs” to be taught, so this seems to you to be no different from teaching religious beliefs.

MANY posters, including myself, have pointed out to you the FACT of the existence of gay people, couples, marriages and families. They have then pointed out the DIFFICULTY of trying to teach religion in public schools—we would need to choose WHICH religion to teach, and then which denomination. We would need to ensure that teachers are QUALIFIED to teach these subjects. We would need a way to CONFIRM if a religious claim WAS actually a fact.

Simply put, these are NOT similar teaching issues. This should be obvious to you. If you need to change the subject and make it about online etiquette, then it only appears that you are trying to distract from the subject at hand.
AzAdam

United States

#235 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
if I told you all about some terrible parents that i know that are also gay, would you take my word for it?
No. I didn't intend to be taken seriously as a study. Simply to illustrate that we're talking about real families right now. Personally I have alot harder time than you telling people they can't raise kids because I disagree with how they're doing it.
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#236 Jan 22, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm convinced they're doing great."
Would you admit it if they weren't doing great? Probably not, as the homosexual mind is intractable.
Vilifying your opponent is a tactic for those without a real argument.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#237 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
this is dumb even for you...
random samples eliminate the bias of using only highly educated lesbians as a "sample" like many of the studies you would rely on do...
the study then doesn't speak to the GENERAL POPULATION because of it, see how that works idiot?
say, what did you do for GE?
Not every study is about the general population, dolt head. Sheesh! If you are investigating an hypothesis about frogs, you don't study plastic furniture. You really are in over your head here. I can tell by your post that you don't have the faintest clue. Using only "highly educated lesbians?".... using them to represent what? The general population? You make me laugh out loud.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#238 Jan 22, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
would it make sense to hand picked them you fool?
If you wish to draw conclusions about white people, it would behoove you to hand pick only white people.

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
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 2 min Professor Jumper 4
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 6 min Fa-Foxy 134
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 8 min SHIRLEY 1,212
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 21 min SHIRLEY 55,981
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 26 min KiMerde 49,882
Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer sold to Russians! 28 min Frankie Rizzo 7
Biggest Gay Lies 51 min OLD SARGE 2,029
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 1 hr Larry Craig s WC ... 471
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••