That is funny. If I am intolerant of bigoted views and prejudice that makes me a bigot? You an a number of posters here are know for this twisted logic, turning this back around on anyone who doesn't agree with you.
There you go. I am not the one intolerant of lifestyles, or identities that do not harm anyone, and while I am intolerant of certain opinions I am not prejudice or discriminating against those people. On the other hand, many posting here are.
You are intolerant of views that you disagree with, you don't know the reasons they disagree, yet you have labeled them "bigots" yes, I think that puts you in your definiton, you apparently have your own religious view. ...
You were classifying that whole majority as prejudiced or bigoted, unless I proved you wrong. You said ...
I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question. Majority or not
if their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong
and
unless you can confirm
that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular)
or explain how exactly
this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset,
this looks like it is based on prejudice
. Please
prove me wrong
.
I'm just one person, I can't prove you are wrong to think they are all prejudiced or bigoted just for having an opinion you don't agree with. I do think that seems to make you look bigoted. But mostly I was just using your "twisted logic" that you were right unless I proved you wrong. I'm not going to to explain exactly or prove to you or confirm anything about all those people. Go ahead and be intolerant of what you have decided they all think and why they think it. Good grief ...
As to the data concerning children raised by gay parents, there is plenty and by no means is it just "rich Hollywood types."
As I've said other places, I don't think social services should consider taking a child away because a single mom has a lesbian mate. I'm not sure of all the evidence, but I do think the voters can determine if they want to change the law to make clear a marriage is for a man or woman. My personal concern is with the left pushing their agenda against the will of the majority, and this is just one of many steps for them.
But you are the one calling people bigots and homophobes ... I don't see how that helps. You don't know those millions of people.
But please stop assuming that I have no formal education in Biblical Research. Just because I dont parade my credentials under everyone's nose does not mean that I do not have them.
I read you page where you sell your book and a little on Amazon ... I would think it would help if you included your credentials. That is pretty typical. Instead I got the impression that your experience you mentioned was TWI.
Now you hinted about some professor, but I really didn't see anything to sell me on your book. If you have credentials in research or whatever, I'd suggest parading them a little would help sell books.
I am merely questioning the credibility of the source you quoted (see your post #206, 209),
along with the material and references she presents. In fact, in post #206 you refer to the source material as "evidence".
As such, the onus is on you to insure that you have a credible source; it is not up to me.
The article was in "The Atlantic Monthly", which seem reputable. The evidence was from many researchers which the author named and quoted. You have presented nothing. For a post on the internet, I think I've done plenty.
You continue questioning it and pretending I have to answer your 50 questions, or else it is all false. This seems a dishonest approach.
First I think we both agree on this that everyone is entitled to equal legal rights regardless of any differences in lifestyle. I think we disagree on how that is assured. I think it can be assured by changing the laws to include civil unions and marriage. I don't believe that one needs to change a words meaning to make something fit.
..........snipped for brevity..............................
Those who seek to change the meaning of marriage say they are updating the word to keep up with the laws, however an examination will tell you differently. first the changes started long before any laws changed, second most states still have no law change and the ones that do are under challenge. So why the rush? Agenda to change the language to reflect their views ,then the law changes can cite the language as reason for their case. Buy the way I'd oppose any change of an established meaning of a word for say a religious reason as well.
.........snipped for brevity.........................
WhiteDove-
First, I don't recall saying you or anyone was homophobic, its not my usual way to do so AND I understand your dislike if that label is applied to you under the circumstances.
I am glad we agree, as I also expected, that all should enjoy equal legal rights. I do not care how this is done as much as I DO care that it is accomplished. I do not however have a problem with "diversity days". Here there are several for different groups (other cultures, earth day, etc., but as a matter of fact I do NOT recall one for gays/lesbians) and it allows everyone in the school to consider one thing at a time, which I think focuses discussion. YVMV, and I understand that. Ours generally also have an "opt out" provision (even part of our middle school sex ed section). But all that is another discussion I think and not germaine to my point at this time.
I also am glad you made the effort to include Frank in the dog park group.
'It seems' (to use a disclaimer that often is being used by many posters these days) that few who oppose gay marriage would support gay civil unions, if those civil unions included all the legal ramification of legal marriages. Personally I think, as I have said before, all government unions should be civil unions and leave the word marriage out of it. Let the churches do the 'marry before God' thing without any legal ramifications at all!
Regarding the controversy over the changing definition of words, personally I find this argument as being weak and I do not see it as having much merit in the argument against gay marriage/civil unions. This is NOT the first change in legal definition of marriage in "hundreds of years", or "eons" as some have suggested. Again on the definition thing, I found this quote interesting:
......the letter got me thinking about the "established definition in law" of the word "marriage."
when sir william blackstone wrote his definitive commentary on the laws of england in 1765 he noted that the act of marriage, legally speaking, means the eradication of the wife as a separate legal entity. as he explained:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and
cover
she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-french a
feme-covert
; is said to be
covert-baron
, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her
baron
, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her
coverture
under this doctrine of coverture, married women were no longer separate legal entities. they could no longer own property (unless special provisions were made prior to marriage), could not sue or be sued separately from their husbands, nor could they enter contracts on their own. thus, the legal definition of marriage was the eradication of the woman as a separate legal actor and the incorporation of her abilities as a legal actor into the husband. for hundreds of years this was what marriage meant in english common-law countries, including the u.s.
it wasn’t until "activist legislatures" started messing with this traditional definition of "marriage" in the mid-19th century when they passed married women’s property acts which abrogated the traditional doctrine of coverture and granted married women the right to own property. within a few decades, every state in the union had passed one.
eyesopen, i'm not sure what you mean by "took it personally"...
you posted something that i thought was relevant to what i had posted, so i commented on it...
Okay....if you say so, it certainly didn't read that way.
verses 6-14 deal with incest
verse 20 deals with adultery
verse 22 deals with homosexuality
verse 23 deals with bestiality
verse 24 says do NOT defile yourself by doing these things (as other nations have defiled themselves with these practices)
and verse 3 says that these "doings" (practices, deeds, acts) were done by the egyptians and the canaanites, but in contrast "you shall not do them"...
this the PLAIN meaning of the scripture in this chapter...
Exactly! Now all you have to do is remember the topic.
the bible addresses the homosexual act...
and a lifestyle is composed of habitual acts...
i am not so sure why you have not found this addressed in the bible... since clearly it is there, as i have just pointed out...
And this is where I disagree. What you claim is "clearly written" I found to be muddy. That's why I started my little quest to begin with. Contrary to what you might think I did not go into it with a preset conclusion only to work towards that same conclusion (that's not honest). I went at it as if I had no clue and perhaps I still dont. But I stand by what I have learned myself from my own study and not by what someone else has told me that it says. I am truly done with that type of lifestyle. No more "never look outside the Word for answers" No more Way brain for me.
Nice chatting with you also Jen-o
I read your page where you sell your book and a little on Amazon ... I would think it would help if you included your credentials. That is pretty typical. Instead I got the impression that your experience you mentioned was TWI.
Now you hinted about some professor, but I really didn't see anything to sell me on your book. If you have credentials in research or whatever, I'd suggest parading them a little would help sell books.
I'm sure you mean "lulu" since Amazon has yet to get my book on its pages. But that will be soon.
If you want to hear my credentials that's fine but would you believe them if they were stated?
The bottom line is that I do not simply post my entire book, not because I am trying to sell it, but because it really is far too much to post. What I find interesting is that another author also announced their book on GS recently and provided links so that those who were interested might purchase it. She then made available some exerpts from the book and lo and behold everyone was just fine with that. I do not recall hearing (or rather) reading anyone who said that she was "dodging" "copping out" or being "evasive" simply because she wanted to sell her book.
Look if someone here wants to make this thread about me or my book that's fine. But understand that I am not playing with you. I stated my opinion and as requested I stated the reason behind my opinion. That is all. I'm done.
... spent the better part of the last thirty years studying the Bible. Her exploratons have taken her across the country several times and through time hundreds of times. God exhorts us in the Bible to study His words and to also meditate upon these things. She endeavors to do both. Her method of research also include any manner of media that gives more information on the subject. Nothing is rejected out of hand. Eventually everything is sorted and as much is discarded as is kept. But nothing is actually thrown out, as it may prove useful later.
... spent the better part of the last thirty years studying the Bible. Her exploratons have taken her across the country several times and through time hundreds of times. God exhorts us in the Bible to study His words and to also meditate upon these things. She endeavors to do both. Her method of research also include any manner of media that gives more information on the subject. Nothing is rejected out of hand. Eventually everything is sorted and as much is discarded as is kept. But nothing is actually thrown out, as it may prove useful later.
That must have just gotten posted recently as they told me it would be another three weeks. Good to see tho.
The article was in "The Atlantic Monthly", which seem reputable. The evidence was from many researchers which the author named and quoted. You have presented nothing. For a post on the internet, I think I've done plenty.
You continue questioning it and pretending I have to answer your 50 questions, or else it is all false. This seems a dishonest approach.
Rhino:
50 questions? Well, that's a big fat exaggeration. I counted them - I asked 10 questions.
And no, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
I'm not questioning you so much as I'm questioning the scholarship of the article.
No, it's not a dishonest approach, it's a scientific approach or an academic approach.
I fail to see how questioning Ms. Whitehead's scholarship and the veracity of her sources,
that you referred to as "evidence," as being dishonest. Furthermore, the article is simply outdated.
I find it disingenuous to present as "evidence" an opinion piece that has a thinly veiled agenda.
The agenda being that "the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers
of children, [and the] increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families dramatically weakens and undermines society."
Thus, Ms. Whitehead's argument, as well as her logic and her sources, will be skewed in that direction in order to support her thesis.
I believe it might also be what causes you to make such statements as:
"But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly,
but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first."
"I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents".
Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural."
Both of the above quotes are from your post # 103.
Quite frankly, I find the above statements to be not only inflammatory rhetoric,
but highly insulting to all adoptive, step, and foster parents. I know that there are
both adoptive parents and step-parents who frequent this board, would you say that to their face?
Most adoptive and step-parents do the absolute best they can raising their children, and yes,
most of them consider them their children. These 'unnatural' parents have feed, clothed, provided shelter,
educated, loved, and taken care of their children, what did the so-called natural parents do?
Moreover, I don't understand why you object so strongly to questions.
Maybe if I had asked more questions instead of blindly accepting as truth what some 'expert' told me,
i wish you were as concerned about the source (and accuracy) of your own information that you posted about animal infanticide as you are about the article that rhino posted...
peace,
jen-o
jen-o:
You said in post # 83:
"Now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?"
Hence the reason that I didn't bother documenting my sources for you. What would be the point?
p.s. i don't see anyone disputing the content of the article, only questioning the author's credentials, credibility, and the style of her writing (i.e. she didn't include whether the research articles she referenced were peer reviewed, and who paid for it)...
most of the article seems to be based on deductive reasoning (and common sense)... the facts provided can be independently verified, and references to researchers are provided for further verification... (looks like a normal article to me)
Why dispute the content of the article when the information contained in the article is outdated?
That seems to me to be an exercise in futility. There is nothing cited that is more recent than the late 1980's,
even though the article was written in 1993. In the social sciences, a twenty year time span changes a number
of social markers because that is considered to be the length of a generation.
And believe it or not, I am skeptical of the scholarship of an article that uses Disney movies (Dumbo and Bambi),
a children's book (no name and author given), Hallmark cards, Murphy Brown, and a bumper sticker to support a (psuedo) social-scientific thesis.
Peer review has nothing to do with style of writing, neither does financial remuneration, for that matter.
Peer review is a process of subjecting a person's work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who
are experts in the same field. For instance, in post #220, lindyhopper uses a quote from the
"Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics", normally articles published in these
types of journals are peer reviewed prior to publication.
Style of writing typically refers to grammar, composition, form, and the way in which the author uses words.
A good reference book is Strunk and White's, The Elements of Style.
Then there is documentation style, which refers to a system of citations.
The three most widely used documentation styles in the US are: Modern Language Association (MLA),
American Psychological Association (APA), and Chicago.
Bottom line, the article is an opinion piece dressed up as science and published in the "Atlantic Monthly."
It is by no means a serious social scientific article, with the attending research, that would be published
in a professional or academic journal. Therefore, it's usefulness as "evidence" is questionable, as is the evidence itself.
the mark of a good professor is the ability to boil it down to the bottom line... and make it so simple that a child could understand it...
anyway, nice chatting with you....
peace,
jen-o
Actually, the mark of a good professor is to challenge students preconceptions and teach them to think critically
with the goal being that the student can think for themselves and ask pertinent questions.
Not, as in TWI, spoon fed the students baby pabulum and expect them to engage in black and white thinking and become good little parrots.
I'm not questioning you so much as I'm questioning the scholarship of the article.
No, it's not a dishonest approach, it's a scientific approach or an academic approach.
I fail to see how questioning Ms. Whitehead's scholarship and the veracity of her sources,
that you referred to as "evidence," as being dishonest. Furthermore, the article is simply outdated.
You asked several questions but never raised a doubt ... it still seems your intent was to instill doubt. I still have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my article's quotes from researchers.
I find it disingenuous to present as "evidence" an opinion piece that has a thinly veiled agenda.
The agenda being that "the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers
of children, [and the]increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families dramatically weakens and undermines society."
Thus, Ms. Whitehead's argument, as well as her logic and her sources, will be skewed in that direction in order to support her thesis.
I used the word evidence because of the quotes from researchers that seemed noteworthy. I don't see your quote as being her agenda ... I think she took that from the research, which she said actually went contrary to what one might surmise.
I believe it might also be what causes you to make such statements as:
"But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly,
but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first."
"I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents".
Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural."
Both of the above quotes are from your post # 103.
Quite frankly, I find the above statements to be not only inflammatory rhetoric,
but highly insulting to all adoptive, step, and foster parents. I know that there are
both adoptive parents and step-parents who frequent this board, would you say that to their face?
Actually I happened upon that article after that discussion about the nature of animals strongly protecting their own. Someone said nature could as easily show we should eat our young because of rats. Then someone made a list of other bad animal parents, which seems to have been fabricated, since it was corrected by jen-o I think.
We are looking at statistics and policy, should we cover up stats that might offend some? I'm betting Sushi and others are tremendous step parents as may often be the case. That doesn't change the comments from researchers, but it does seem to be the heart of why you asked your 50 10 questions.
Most adoptive and step-parents do the absolute best they can raising their children, and yes,
most of them consider them their children. These 'unnatural' parents have feed, clothed, provided shelter,
educated, loved, and taken care of their children, what did the so-called natural parents do?
Are you basing this on research? There may be many cases where this is true, and many where it is not. The researchers quoted in the article said it was more likely the child was better off when the parent stayed single. It seems stability was a big factor. Usually one natural parent is still there, and often the other parent still cares very much about the child. Perhaps more social pressure for parents to marry and stay married would help the child. It is quite a commitment.
Moreover, I don't understand why you object so strongly to questions.
Maybe if I had asked more questions instead of blindly accepting as truth what some 'expert' told me,
I wouldn't have become involved in a cult.
The article had sources, you didn't pursue the sources .. you kept asking questions here. You gave no real reason for doubt, you just wanted to introduce doubt, to defend those offended step parents ... it appears.
I don't think the article is outdated ... it makes some interesting points. It is just an article ... not the final word. You are questioning peer review of the article ... you should be asking about the peer review of the "evidence" or research that was quoted. You can track that down if you want ... it seemed mainstream to me.
A lesbian couple raising a child from birth, with the sperm donated by the brother of the non-mother, may be a pretty good family ... perhaps better than the single mother. There are still always questions, but that seemed pretty innovative.
and here is the author of that article, Barbara Defoe Whitehead, in testimony before a senate subcommittee on children and families ... talking about marriage. I don't know what her stance is on the homosexual "marriage" ...
Like all human institutions, marriage is far from perfect. And getting married does not turn people into saints. Yet the fact remains: despite its acknowledged problems and imperfections, marriage remains an indispensable source of social goods, individual benefits, mutual caregiving, affectionate attachments, and long-term commitments. And people who are married, though not saints, tend to behave in ways that benefit themselves, their children, families and communities. Given these advantages, it makes good sense for the public and private sector to explore ways to reduce the barriers to healthy marriage and to make it possible for more parents to form strong and lasting marital unions. Even a relatively modest increase in healthy marriage formation and duration could reduce levels of child poverty, increase parental income and promote higher levels of child wellbeing among families with children.
Now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?"
bfh posted:
Hence the reason that I didn't bother documenting my sources for you. What would be the point?
really??... you sure do like to rewrite the order of events...
you posted your undocumented list of animals that practiced infanticide in post #51
far BEFORE i ever made that statement in post #83...
so are you telling me that you looked into the future to see what i was gonna say much later, and decided to "not bother" documenting your animal list based on my future and as yet unspoken statement??
i think not...
i think you failed to document your source, but want to hold someone else to a much higher standard!
further, my statement in #83 was a response to your post of #79 wherein you used wikipedia as a source for an article on animal sexual behavior...
i have nothing against wikipedia,
but acc. to your standards: where is the peer review for this wikipedia article??
and what are the credentials of the authors??
sounds like a double standard...
you also stated in defense of your use of wiki: "Of course, why would we want to bother with science?"
is that what you consider science?? a wikipedia article??
back to your undocumented list of animals in post #51...
i said nothing about the credibility of your sources...
i merely refuted the content of your premise wherein you stated: "In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids."
i refuted the content and provided documentation so that you could check it out for yourself...
and the information i found NEGATES your premise (see post #93)
however, you didn't bother to comment on that...
the reason why you're approach seems dishonest is because:
you ask a lot of questions which raise doubt about the veracity of the information rhino linked to...
and yet, you never refute the content of the article at all...
oh, and not everything that is "dated" is wrong...
it wouldn't make any difference if the info on animal sex behavior was published last year or a hundred years ago...
whether info is accurate or not is not a function of when it was published...
if you have a point to refute, then do so...
but to dismiss something outright due to "dates", peer review, credentials of author, etc. seems dishonest...
Actually, the mark of a good professor is to challenge students preconceptions and teach them to think critically
with the goal being that the student can think for themselves and ask pertinent questions.
btw, this isn't so cut and dry in every field or educational discipline...
(like the field of mathematics or history... some things are facts, so what preconceptions are there to challenge?)
i was thinking along the lines of a broader scope...
and even in the social-sciences or philosophy, a professor needs to be able to succinctly summarize various perspectives, issues, worldviews, etc. with the goal of student understanding BEFORE students will have the ability to ask pertinent questions or think critically about anything...
Not, as in TWI, spoon fed the students baby pabulum and expect them to engage in black and white thinking and become good little parrots.
i was under the impression that most of us here had chucked twi thinking...
but you and eyesopen have both brought it up...
and i hope that you are not attempting to discredit me by insinuating that i engage in twi-like thinking...
(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)
Jen I don't believe that I ever said I acepted TWI doctrine, that was your assumption and as such as you say
(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)
My doctrine is truth , if other doctrines agree then so be it, if not so be it.
you're joking, right?
whitedove,
ever since i began posting here in march, you have continually regurgitated way doctrine...
even to the point of quoting twi doctrine verbatim and quoting whole sections of twi materials...
you have defended twi and vpw repeatedly and tenaciously...
there are so many examples of this, it's hard to choose from...
but here's one:
Again I'll point out that the problems occurred from or a result of non - Way doctrines, not (where the victard's teachings led them at all) but in new directions they sought after.... nor do they fit into the category of keys to the Word's interpretation.
if you don't accept way doctrine, then tell me what part you reject!
i have disagreed with you honestly and openly by attacking the doctrine DIRECTLY!
nor do i attempt to discredit you by sidestepping the issues with sly or underhanded remarks... (i'm not sure that you can say the same)
i have attacked way doctrine, and i have attacked the conclusions you have drawn...
Okay....if you say so, it certainly didn't read that way.
eyesopen, you say that like you don't believe me...
not only was i not offended or emotionally upset, i actually welcome the opportunity to express my point of view...
if you had not posted, i would have had nothing further to say...
and i'm sure that many people would have liked that!... LOL :P
Exactly! Now all you have to do is remember the topic.
hmmm... interesting way to word it...
do you think that i have forgotten the topic??
the topic is:
when you go into the land of canaan,
do not follow the practices ("doings", deeds, acts) of the egyptians nor of the canaanites...
further, here is a list of the specific acts (that they engaged in) which i prohibit you from doing....
(although i've got a feeling you think that the topic is something else... based upon something outside of this straightforward passage)
but i still ask you:
if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)
What you claim is "clearly written" I found to be muddy.
eyesopen, this is not really a problem with the text...
But I stand by what I have learned myself from my own study and not by what someone else has told me that it says. I am truly done with that type of lifestyle. No more "never look outside the Word for answers" No more Way brain for me.
more interesting wording...
you've strung these things together as if they are equal...
i, too, stand by what i have learned myself from my own study...
the conclusions i have come to are not the result of what someone else told me...
[and definitely not from twi... i have no clue what twi taught about homosexuality...
except they probably taught it was a debbil spirit or sumpin]
and so, we both stand by what we've learned from our own private study...
and yet, we have come to totally opposite conclusions...
i'm willing to take a look at that, but you are not?
ever since i began posting here in march, you have continually regurgitated way doctrine...
even to the point of quoting twi doctrine verbatim and quoting whole sections of twi materials...
you have defended twi and vpw repeatedly and tenaciously...
No I could not be more serious. Remember I said My doctrine is truth , if other doctrines agree then so be it, if not so be it.
Perhaps if you were not so busy attacking as you put it you could see truth , you choose to box in truth according to titles, I don't! I have defended honest words, be it speaking of TWI or others, I have no agenda to attack.
if you don't accept way doctrine, then tell me what part you reject!
Jeno I'm not going to list them all for you it's pointless and I don't have the time.You can dig through the threads and find some though if you really want to know.
i have disagreed with you honestly and openly by attacking the doctrine DIRECTLY!
nor do i attempt to discredit you by sidestepping the issues with sly or underhanded remarks... (i'm not sure that you can say the same)
i have attacked way doctrine, and i have attacked the conclusions you have drawn...
i hardly need to resort to any other tactics...
but evidently you do...
I'd answer but I can't stop laughing at the moment......
Thanks Bumpy! That was a good article. I have often wondered when the Germans would acknowledge this little piece of their history. Well done.
Eyes, being the she-shaark that you is, with that S E X Y FIN of yours...and the fact that I've been eating oysters most of the day here in one of my old hangouts...
Such mandatory public school attendance, and the accompanying procedures to physically escort children to schools, were legalized under the Nazis in 1938. Hitler was concerned at that time about having children grow up with perspectives that were not approved by the state.
A new ruling from the European Human Rights Court has affirmed the German nation's Nazi-era ban on homeschooling, concluding that society has a significant interest in preventing the development of dissent through "separate philosophical convictions."
"Christian family values are being replaced by the state's moral values.
"There are approximately 40 other cases pending in Germany [against homeschoolers]," the HSLDA said. "Many homeschool families have fled to Austria or another nearby country where homeschooling is legal. The German government is persecuting these innocent families without mercy. The German Embassy has indicated they cannot allow 'parallel cultures.' Christian homeschooling is a 'parallel culture' that Germany does not want."
evidently, in germany, homosexuality is an approved and government sanctioned lifestyle, but christianity is not...
anyway, for the record, i do not hate homosexuals...
and neither am i afraid of them...
but that doesn't mean i have to approve of the homosexual act...
bumpy, are you really in riec sur belon right now?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
rhino
You are intolerant of views that you disagree with, you don't know the reasons they disagree, yet you have labeled them "bigots" yes, I think that puts you in your definiton, you apparently have your own religious view. ...
You were classifying that whole majority as prejudiced or bigoted, unless I proved you wrong. You said ...
I'm just one person, I can't prove you are wrong to think they are all prejudiced or bigoted just for having an opinion you don't agree with. I do think that seems to make you look bigoted. But mostly I was just using your "twisted logic" that you were right unless I proved you wrong.
I'm not going to to explain exactly or prove to you or confirm anything about all those people. Go ahead and be intolerant of what you have decided they all think and why they think it. Good grief ...
As I've said other places, I don't think social services should consider taking a child away because a single mom has a lesbian mate. I'm not sure of all the evidence, but I do think the voters can determine if they want to change the law to make clear a marriage is for a man or woman. My personal concern is with the left pushing their agenda against the will of the majority, and this is just one of many steps for them.
But you are the one calling people bigots and homophobes ... I don't see how that helps. You don't know those millions of people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I read you page where you sell your book and a little on Amazon ... I would think it would help if you included your credentials. That is pretty typical. Instead I got the impression that your experience you mentioned was TWI.
Now you hinted about some professor, but I really didn't see anything to sell me on your book. If you have credentials in research or whatever, I'd suggest parading them a little would help sell books.
Good luck ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The article was in "The Atlantic Monthly", which seem reputable. The evidence was from many researchers which the author named and quoted. You have presented nothing. For a post on the internet, I think I've done plenty.
You continue questioning it and pretending I have to answer your 50 questions, or else it is all false. This seems a dishonest approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
WhiteDove-
First, I don't recall saying you or anyone was homophobic, its not my usual way to do so AND I understand your dislike if that label is applied to you under the circumstances.
I am glad we agree, as I also expected, that all should enjoy equal legal rights. I do not care how this is done as much as I DO care that it is accomplished. I do not however have a problem with "diversity days". Here there are several for different groups (other cultures, earth day, etc., but as a matter of fact I do NOT recall one for gays/lesbians) and it allows everyone in the school to consider one thing at a time, which I think focuses discussion. YVMV, and I understand that. Ours generally also have an "opt out" provision (even part of our middle school sex ed section). But all that is another discussion I think and not germaine to my point at this time.
I also am glad you made the effort to include Frank in the dog park group.
'It seems' (to use a disclaimer that often is being used by many posters these days) that few who oppose gay marriage would support gay civil unions, if those civil unions included all the legal ramification of legal marriages. Personally I think, as I have said before, all government unions should be civil unions and leave the word marriage out of it. Let the churches do the 'marry before God' thing without any legal ramifications at all!
Regarding the controversy over the changing definition of words, personally I find this argument as being weak and I do not see it as having much merit in the argument against gay marriage/civil unions. This is NOT the first change in legal definition of marriage in "hundreds of years", or "eons" as some have suggested. Again on the definition thing, I found this quote interesting:
The complete article can be found here:
http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2004/02/chang...efinitions.html
HAP
Let's remember, the US has the phrase 'One nation UNDER God'' it does not say EQUAL to Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Okay....if you say so, it certainly didn't read that way.
Exactly! Now all you have to do is remember the topic.
And this is where I disagree. What you claim is "clearly written" I found to be muddy. That's why I started my little quest to begin with. Contrary to what you might think I did not go into it with a preset conclusion only to work towards that same conclusion (that's not honest). I went at it as if I had no clue and perhaps I still dont. But I stand by what I have learned myself from my own study and not by what someone else has told me that it says. I am truly done with that type of lifestyle. No more "never look outside the Word for answers" No more Way brain for me.
Nice chatting with you also Jen-o
I'm sure you mean "lulu" since Amazon has yet to get my book on its pages. But that will be soon.
If you want to hear my credentials that's fine but would you believe them if they were stated?
The bottom line is that I do not simply post my entire book, not because I am trying to sell it, but because it really is far too much to post. What I find interesting is that another author also announced their book on GS recently and provided links so that those who were interested might purchase it. She then made available some exerpts from the book and lo and behold everyone was just fine with that. I do not recall hearing (or rather) reading anyone who said that she was "dodging" "copping out" or being "evasive" simply because she wanted to sell her book.
Look if someone here wants to make this thread about me or my book that's fine. But understand that I am not playing with you. I stated my opinion and as requested I stated the reason behind my opinion. That is all. I'm done.
Oh and...God Bless us Everyone!!!
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Why would I not believe you?
OK, the lulu site page that was linked shows your book?
Is this not your book? This is from Amazon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
That must have just gotten posted recently as they told me it would be another three weeks. Good to see tho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Rhino:
50 questions? Well, that's a big fat exaggeration. I counted them - I asked 10 questions.
And no, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
I'm not questioning you so much as I'm questioning the scholarship of the article.
No, it's not a dishonest approach, it's a scientific approach or an academic approach.
I fail to see how questioning Ms. Whitehead's scholarship and the veracity of her sources,
that you referred to as "evidence," as being dishonest. Furthermore, the article is simply outdated.
I find it disingenuous to present as "evidence" an opinion piece that has a thinly veiled agenda.
The agenda being that "the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers
of children, [and the] increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families dramatically weakens and undermines society."
Thus, Ms. Whitehead's argument, as well as her logic and her sources, will be skewed in that direction in order to support her thesis.
I believe it might also be what causes you to make such statements as:
"But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly,
but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first."
"I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents".
Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural."
Both of the above quotes are from your post # 103.
Quite frankly, I find the above statements to be not only inflammatory rhetoric,
but highly insulting to all adoptive, step, and foster parents. I know that there are
both adoptive parents and step-parents who frequent this board, would you say that to their face?
Most adoptive and step-parents do the absolute best they can raising their children, and yes,
most of them consider them their children. These 'unnatural' parents have feed, clothed, provided shelter,
educated, loved, and taken care of their children, what did the so-called natural parents do?
Moreover, I don't understand why you object so strongly to questions.
Maybe if I had asked more questions instead of blindly accepting as truth what some 'expert' told me,
I wouldn't have become involved in a cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
But looks aren't everything......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
jen-o:
You said in post # 83:
"Now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?"
Hence the reason that I didn't bother documenting my sources for you. What would be the point?
Why dispute the content of the article when the information contained in the article is outdated?
That seems to me to be an exercise in futility. There is nothing cited that is more recent than the late 1980's,
even though the article was written in 1993. In the social sciences, a twenty year time span changes a number
of social markers because that is considered to be the length of a generation.
And believe it or not, I am skeptical of the scholarship of an article that uses Disney movies (Dumbo and Bambi),
a children's book (no name and author given), Hallmark cards, Murphy Brown, and a bumper sticker to support a (psuedo) social-scientific thesis.
Peer review has nothing to do with style of writing, neither does financial remuneration, for that matter.
Peer review is a process of subjecting a person's work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who
are experts in the same field. For instance, in post #220, lindyhopper uses a quote from the
"Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics", normally articles published in these
types of journals are peer reviewed prior to publication.
Style of writing typically refers to grammar, composition, form, and the way in which the author uses words.
A good reference book is Strunk and White's, The Elements of Style.
Then there is documentation style, which refers to a system of citations.
The three most widely used documentation styles in the US are: Modern Language Association (MLA),
American Psychological Association (APA), and Chicago.
Bottom line, the article is an opinion piece dressed up as science and published in the "Atlantic Monthly."
It is by no means a serious social scientific article, with the attending research, that would be published
in a professional or academic journal. Therefore, it's usefulness as "evidence" is questionable, as is the evidence itself.
Actually, the mark of a good professor is to challenge students preconceptions and teach them to think critically
with the goal being that the student can think for themselves and ask pertinent questions.
Not, as in TWI, spoon fed the students baby pabulum and expect them to engage in black and white thinking and become good little parrots.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
You asked several questions but never raised a doubt ... it still seems your intent was to instill doubt. I still have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my article's quotes from researchers.
I used the word evidence because of the quotes from researchers that seemed noteworthy. I don't see your quote as being her agenda ... I think she took that from the research, which she said actually went contrary to what one might surmise.
Actually I happened upon that article after that discussion about the nature of animals strongly protecting their own. Someone said nature could as easily show we should eat our young because of rats. Then someone made a list of other bad animal parents, which seems to have been fabricated, since it was corrected by jen-o I think.We are looking at statistics and policy, should we cover up stats that might offend some? I'm betting Sushi and others are tremendous step parents as may often be the case. That doesn't change the comments from researchers, but it does seem to be the heart of why you asked your 50 10 questions.
Are you basing this on research? There may be many cases where this is true, and many where it is not. The researchers quoted in the article said it was more likely the child was better off when the parent stayed single. It seems stability was a big factor. Usually one natural parent is still there, and often the other parent still cares very much about the child. Perhaps more social pressure for parents to marry and stay married would help the child. It is quite a commitment.
The article had sources, you didn't pursue the sources .. you kept asking questions here. You gave no real reason for doubt, you just wanted to introduce doubt, to defend those offended step parents ... it appears.
I don't think the article is outdated ... it makes some interesting points. It is just an article ... not the final word. You are questioning peer review of the article ... you should be asking about the peer review of the "evidence" or research that was quoted. You can track that down if you want ... it seemed mainstream to me.
A lesbian couple raising a child from birth, with the sperm donated by the brother of the non-mother, may be a pretty good family ... perhaps better than the single mother. There are still always questions, but that seemed pretty innovative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Here is "The National Marriage Project"
and here is the author of that article, Barbara Defoe Whitehead, in testimony before a senate subcommittee on children and families ... talking about marriage. I don't know what her stance is on the homosexual "marriage" ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
you posted your undocumented list of animals that practiced infanticide in post #51
far BEFORE i ever made that statement in post #83...
so are you telling me that you looked into the future to see what i was gonna say much later, and decided to "not bother" documenting your animal list based on my future and as yet unspoken statement??
i think not...
i think you failed to document your source, but want to hold someone else to a much higher standard!
further, my statement in #83 was a response to your post of #79 wherein you used wikipedia as a source for an article on animal sexual behavior...
i have nothing against wikipedia,
but acc. to your standards: where is the peer review for this wikipedia article??
and what are the credentials of the authors??
sounds like a double standard...
you also stated in defense of your use of wiki: "Of course, why would we want to bother with science?"
is that what you consider science?? a wikipedia article??
back to your undocumented list of animals in post #51...
i said nothing about the credibility of your sources...
i merely refuted the content of your premise wherein you stated: "In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids."
i refuted the content and provided documentation so that you could check it out for yourself...
and the information i found NEGATES your premise (see post #93)
however, you didn't bother to comment on that...
the reason why you're approach seems dishonest is because:
you ask a lot of questions which raise doubt about the veracity of the information rhino linked to...
and yet, you never refute the content of the article at all...
oh, and not everything that is "dated" is wrong...
it wouldn't make any difference if the info on animal sex behavior was published last year or a hundred years ago...
whether info is accurate or not is not a function of when it was published...
if you have a point to refute, then do so...
but to dismiss something outright due to "dates", peer review, credentials of author, etc. seems dishonest...
btw, this isn't so cut and dry in every field or educational discipline...(like the field of mathematics or history... some things are facts, so what preconceptions are there to challenge?)
i was thinking along the lines of a broader scope...
and even in the social-sciences or philosophy, a professor needs to be able to succinctly summarize various perspectives, issues, worldviews, etc. with the goal of student understanding BEFORE students will have the ability to ask pertinent questions or think critically about anything...
i was under the impression that most of us here had chucked twi thinking...but you and eyesopen have both brought it up...
and i hope that you are not attempting to discredit me by insinuating that i engage in twi-like thinking...
(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
now thats funny seems I heard that before. Now where was it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
i forgot to respond to this:
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
why would i need to insinuate something that you readily admit??
are you now saying that you reject twi doctrine and thought??
i would be only too happy to hear about this turn of events!
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Jen I don't believe that I ever said I acepted TWI doctrine, that was your assumption and as such as you say
(that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either)
My doctrine is truth , if other doctrines agree then so be it, if not so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
whitedove,
ever since i began posting here in march, you have continually regurgitated way doctrine...
even to the point of quoting twi doctrine verbatim and quoting whole sections of twi materials...
you have defended twi and vpw repeatedly and tenaciously...
there are so many examples of this, it's hard to choose from...
but here's one:
if you don't accept way doctrine, then tell me what part you reject!
i have disagreed with you honestly and openly by attacking the doctrine DIRECTLY!
nor do i attempt to discredit you by sidestepping the issues with sly or underhanded remarks... (i'm not sure that you can say the same)
i have attacked way doctrine, and i have attacked the conclusions you have drawn...
i hardly need to resort to any other tactics...
but evidently you do...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
not only was i not offended or emotionally upset, i actually welcome the opportunity to express my point of view...
if you had not posted, i would have had nothing further to say...
and i'm sure that many people would have liked that!... LOL :P
hmmm... interesting way to word it...do you think that i have forgotten the topic??
the topic is:
when you go into the land of canaan,
do not follow the practices ("doings", deeds, acts) of the egyptians nor of the canaanites...
further, here is a list of the specific acts (that they engaged in) which i prohibit you from doing....
(although i've got a feeling you think that the topic is something else... based upon something outside of this straightforward passage)
but i still ask you:
if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)
eyesopen, this is not really a problem with the text... more interesting wording...you've strung these things together as if they are equal...
i, too, stand by what i have learned myself from my own study...
the conclusions i have come to are not the result of what someone else told me...
[and definitely not from twi... i have no clue what twi taught about homosexuality...
except they probably taught it was a debbil spirit or sumpin]
and so, we both stand by what we've learned from our own private study...
and yet, we have come to totally opposite conclusions...
i'm willing to take a look at that, but you are not?
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Peace Baby, jen-o! I mean like maybe you should have spent more time at twi? But if that cat don't hunt, maybe a little European history will do?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080527/D90U5PFGB.html
Peace, Bump
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Thanks Bumpy! That was a good article. I have often wondered when the Germans would acknowledge this little piece of their history. Well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Eyes, being the she-shaark that you is, with that S E X Y FIN of yours...and the fact that I've been eating oysters most of the day here in one of my old hangouts...
http://www.riecsurbelon.fr/-Economie-.html
CAN I PLEASE LICK YOUR LIPS JUST ONCE, PLEASE...S'IL VOUS PLAIT!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
bumpy?
peace backatcha...
but, spend more time in twi?
i have my reservations about germany...
anti-semitism is on the rise there...
as well as the persecution of homeschoolers...
taken from various articles on the internet:
evidently, in germany, homosexuality is an approved and government sanctioned lifestyle, but christianity is not...anyway, for the record, i do not hate homosexuals...
and neither am i afraid of them...
but that doesn't mean i have to approve of the homosexual act...
bumpy, are you really in riec sur belon right now?
sounds b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l......
cheers!
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.