The Loss of Freedoms

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up.

This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint.

John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them.

Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing...

So is it wrong to be prejudiced against torturing and burning people who don't subscribe to your myths? Is the Inquisition a fallacy? Are you trying to deny it?

I think YOU have a serious problem of credibility here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

for a guy decrying Bill for not using any logic, the level of emotion in your postings is rather high.

Only thing worse is legislating on this emotion.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

Micro, everything you say about the family may well be true.

It does not necessarily follow that we need GOVERNMENT COERCION to make it happen. That's my issue with all of this.

Most Liberals and most Conservatives are good people with good goals.

Unfortunately the Democrats and the Republicans have so monopolized the political world that we've been led to believe that if something needs to get done, then we should turn to the government to achieve it. THAT"S where I disagree, not with the ideal of building strong families.


The Democrats & Republicans have been overwhelming all political offices since before our grandparents were born. As a result we've come to the false conclusion that if something isn't under Government control, then it's out of control. That's an assumption that some of us would like to challenge.

I agree and not once have I stated that I agree that we should have gov't "coercion" regarding this situation. However, when "special interest groups" try to "reinvent" the family and redifine it as any abbaration they see fit -by using rogue judges who legislate from the bench! THAT is when the govt. should step in and put a stop to such sillinness.

Why should any branch of government be involved in what is clearly a personal matter. Why should YOUR church, which has a very NASTY history, try to influence legislation over the morality of non-believers? Cast out your own beam before looking for motes in the eyes of others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Liberals aren't trying to amend the constitution to favor their favorite type of sexual relationship.

Quote

Your right. They do it in the courts

Liberals aren't getting the US government to maintain massive crosses on mountaintops.

Again you are right. They are trying to read into the constitution laws that are not there and they use the courts to do it. This is the way they get symbols of morality that stress consequenses for actions torn down and relegated bad behavior to the fault of society

Liberals don't try to tear families apart to push their view of morality.

Quote

Right again, destroy the family structure by saying women staying at home is bad.

>One of the planks of their agenda is to destroy anything that is based on a moral law . . .

Actuall, one of the planks of liberal's agendas is to get the government out of our bedrooms, and let people decide on their own what's moral and what isn't. Some people feel threatened by that for some reason.

Read above

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,009]

>Your right. They do it in the courts

Which is where questions of law are decided. "Activist" judges gave us interracial marriages; someday they will give us same-sex unions as well.

>They are trying to read into the constitution laws that are not
>there and they use the courts to do it.

Nope. Actually, they're saying that if a law violates the constitution, you can't enforce it, even if it helps your favorite religion/social cause/morality crusade. PEOPLE have rights; not governments.

>Right again, destroy the family structure by saying women staying at home is bad.

Nope. Generally liberals say that THE FAMILY should decide who stays at home and who doesn't.

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Right again, destroy the family structure by saying women staying at home is bad

I'm a liberal feminist. Women staying at home is not bad. Women being told that is their only option is bad. Men being told their only option is to go into the family business is bad. And that's what I've seen written and said in liberal feminist press for a long time. There are fringe elements, just as there are fringe elements on the conservative side who think that God used 9-11 to punish America.

Quote

They are trying to read into the constitution laws that are not there and they use the courts to do it. This is the way they get symbols of morality that stress consequenses for actions torn down and relegated bad behavior to the fault of society

By trying to legislate a possible ideal as the only goal worth supporting, people who are in the "one-man-working-one-woman-at-home-children" camp are putting all of their eggs into one basket. The problem is that since people are complex critters, that one basket does not and never will hold all people.

So what do we do with the rest? Throw them away? Burn them? Reduce their status so they know they're fucked? Or do we try to raise certain facets of quality of life for as many people as possible, acknowledging that some will end up with a higher quality than others.

It's kind of like telling all students that only A's are acceptable, when some are really not capable of making A's. You provide external tutoring, but not alternative classes, not different job paths, no home schooling, or anything else. There is one best path, and it's the only one we're supporting.

Sure, we say everyone is capable of A's. But if you take someone who was malnurtured, born of an alcoholic mother, raised with no support of education, and then dropped them into Harvard when they turned 18, it wouldn't be real surprising if they failed. Yes, it's possible to succeed under those circumstances. It's just a whole lot harder, and we shouldn't discard the people who don't.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,034]

The Bill of Rights protects people from the government, not the other way around. I'm truly amazed that those who define themselves as conservatives are so willing to give up their rights to the government (well, actually they are usually trying to give up the rights of other people to the government).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

well, actually they are usually trying to give up the rights of other people to the government

I'm going to say that many people are more careful with rights they actually use than the ones that they don't really see the point of. But sometimes there is that "I'm not using those rights and I'm doing just fine, so WTF is the big deal?" attitude.

We just tend to notice it more in the people who aren't on the same page.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

Quote

Right. This time it's about sexuality. Same underlying reason - someone thinks that a gay family isn't a good one, just as they thought that an interracial family wasn't a good one. No hard reason, it's just how they feel.

I knew a kid back in the eighties who had two mommies. I saw him later in life when he was about 23yr. old, and spoke with him at length. His" parents" were what I would call militant lesbians. Hopefully, by now, he has straightened his life out, because his "parents"surely weren't a positive influence.

From what I've seen in the media, those homosexual parents who are in the limelight feel the need to shove their agenda to the forefront.

Don't you just love the conversation:

Child #1 "I woud like you to meet my Mom and Dad."
Child #2 "These are my two mommies- or daddies."

Child #1 "How come you have two mommies?"

Child #2 "Oh, they're lesbians."


Having to explain the sexual orientation of your "parents" wouldn't seem natural to me.

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Having to explain the sexual orientation of your "parents" wouldn't seem natural to me.

Nor would having to explain a retarded brother be natural to me.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,009]

>His" parents" were what I would call militant lesbians. Hopefully, by
> now, he has straightened his life out, because his "parents"surely
> weren't a positive influence.

I can definitely see that. If parents place their agenda - whether it's militant lesbianism, right-wing religious extremism or anti-gay campaigning - over their child's needs, that child is going to have problems.

>Having to explain the sexual orientation of your "parents"
>wouldn't seem natural to me.

Why is it any different for straight people than for gay people? I think it might be a little easier for gays, actually:

"You came from an orphanage, after your parents were killed in an earthquake."

"You came out your mommy's vagina after I put my penis in there."

(Although in both cases, perhaps an alternative story for very young kids might be in order.)

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

I know all that, that is why I was asking micro for a link to a scientific study that said differently. Hopefully one performed by a "neutral" organization or individual.

So far he has pointed me to his bookcase, saying he is too busy for anything else.

Hmmm - I think it's much more a kind of "religious" war between 2 parties:

Once in ancient times, 2 cave dwellers were sitting on the ground floor near to the fire. They were bored and started to compare their private parts: Mine is longer .... no mine is bigger ..... Suddenly, clubs were swinging - violence was in the air. They called names at each other (Micro and such .....) ! That was the begin of a an age-long "religious" (believing?) war - still burning today, even on smaller flames.

That's result of my personal scientific studies made on the thread.

No need to dig deep into libraries - just watch the evidence

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Lindsey 0]

And sorry for calling you a fool, but it just doesn't make sense to me how this doesn't make sense to more "enlightened" people! I mean, not to insult the intelligence of farmers, but even they get this! This is not rocket science!

Maybe the fact that other reasonably intelligent people don't agree with you could help YOU understand that there's more than one reasonable answer. I agree that it's not rocket science....but maybe you're the one who's not getting it.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

I know all that, that is why I was asking micro for a link to a scientific study that said differently. Hopefully one performed by a "neutral" organization or individual.

So far he has pointed me to his bookcase, saying he is too busy for anything else.

Oh please... you think any of Bills sources are neutral? Like the APA? That is positiely laughable! I haven't responded to your assinine posts b/c you've set me up from the begining to fail. Anything that would support my "opinion" would be denounced as "right winged" or as "religious based."

Give me a break.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,009]

>you think any of Bills sources are neutral? Like the APA? That
>is positiely laughable!

It's laughable that a medical association would be more interested in medicine than politics?

Feel free to post links to studies that support your view.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up.

This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint.

John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them.

Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing...

So is it wrong to be prejudiced against torturing and burning people who don't subscribe to your myths? Is the Inquisition a fallacy? Are you trying to deny it?

I think YOU have a serious problem of credibility here.

Um... you're bringing up someting that happened hundreds and hundred and hundreds of years ago... why exactly?

oh that's right, b/c THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE JOHN!!!

like I said before, same shit, different day. all you have is to attack my religion, when it really isn't even part of this discussion. you brought it in here so you could attack it.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>you think any of Bills sources are neutral? Like the APA? That
>is positiely laughable!

It's laughable that a medical association would be more interested in medicine than politics?

Feel free to post links to studies that support your view.

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.

What is with you people? Every fucking statement I make has to be backed up by the results of a study?

From now on, ever statement you all make as well must be backed up by a valid, replicated, non-partisan, study, financed by money that is not tied to any liberal agenda.

Lord have mercy!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

financed by money that is not tied to any liberal agenda

That would leave out pretty much everything. There's some liberal money almost everywhere. Just as there's some conservative money almost everywhere.

I did some looking in Amazon; one book that seemed to be interesting and balanced kind of gave me pause. It was about the science of sexuality, and said that the authors looked through the material, gave unbiased opinions, but that of course they started out with the assumption that homosexuality was wrong.

They also decided that only about 30% of homosexuals could "change" and that for the rest, celibacy was the only good choice.

But if you start with a "right" and a "wrong" then it's no longer science, it's justification. And that works in both directions -- people who talked 30 years ago about its being slavery for women to want to stay at home were just as full of it.

More women seem to want to take that role. How much of it is social, and how much of it is biological is an interesting question. But if you go in with the question stated as "how many are deviant and don't want to stay home" it kind of taints the interpretation. At least to me.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Lindsey 0]

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.


Maybe they lean to the left because that's where the empirical evidence points. If the evidence were otherwise, perhaps they'd espouse different views....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

financed by money that is not tied to any liberal agenda

That would leave out pretty much everything. There's some liberal money almost everywhere. Just as there's some conservative money almost everywhere.

reply]

Of course, I was speaking tongue in cheek. It's a nice way to try and trump the conversation and claim an ill-gotten victory if your opponent can't quickly gather up some sources to post. And if you CAN gather some sources, your opponent can always discredit them as "biased" in some way b/c the author has conservative leanings or is known to be Catholic or whatever.

It's all bad polemics, really. I mean c'mon, this is a skydiving website and we're debating this stuff. It takes enough time away from my job as it is. But yet that is just a lame excuse to skydekker who says that I really didn't have anything to back it up anyway. Low. But you know, if I took the time to reference everything, would it matter?

No. Because as many people here have already said in the past, people believe what they believe and nothing that I say or you say is going to convince anyone to change their mind, at least to people like skydekker, or kallend, or billvon, or me.

So is there a point to all of this debate? Doesn't seem to be, does there.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

• Quote

[billvon 3,009]

>The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric
> Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.

And the American Academy of Pediatrics? And Tufts?

It may be that everyone except conservative activists are leftists. It also may be that they are basing their views on the studies rather than politics, and the studies are indicating something that conservatives do not want to hear.

Bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance. That doesn't mean that bacteria are anti-creationist leftists. That's just what they do.

The climate continues to get warmer. That doesn't mean that our atmosphere has liberal leanings. It's just what's happening.

Kids with same-sex parents do as well as any other sort of kid. Revealing that makes you a left-leaner.

>Every fucking statement I make has to be backed up by the results of a study?

Not at all. But if you claim it's fact, not opinion, don't expect anyone to take it seriously if it flies in the face of the studies that _are_ out there.

OTOH, if it's just your opinion, then no problem. You are entitled to it.

[micro 0]

Quote

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.


Maybe they lean to the left because that's where the empirical evidence points. If the evidence were otherwise, perhaps they'd espouse different views....

linz

PAH! Oh, thats ripe! Let's not forget something girl... The American Psychiatric Association changes their diagnostic and statistical manual based on research and empirical findings. What works, what doesn't work in therapy, treatment, pharmacology, etc.

Except for that little episode (sarcasm alert) in the '70's when militant homosexuals stormed the APA's annual convention in DC, using what would today be described as terrorist tactics and basically held the meeting hostage, demanding that the DSM be changed so that same-sex attraction, homosexual orientation, be taken out of the DSM. The psychiatrists in charge of the nomeclature of the DSM caved. Overnight, what was once a disorder suddely POOF! was no longer a disorder. No empirical research, no data, nothing. One day you're a sick homosexual, the next day your a normal, well-functioning member of society.

Quote

Maybe they lean to the left because that's where the empirical evidence points. If the evidence were otherwise, perhaps they'd espouse different views....

That's what you wrote... Sorry, that ISN'T the case and that ISN'T where the empirical evidence points. Unfortunately, the APA, both of them, own the publishing rights to a lot of the journals out there and if you have research that doesn't jive w/ their political agenda, it won't get published, no matter how sound it is. Period.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric
> Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.

And the American Academy of Pediatrics? And Tufts?

It may be that everyone except conservative activists are leftists. It also may be that they are basing their views on the studies rather than politics, and the studies are indicating something that conservatives do not want to hear.

Bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance. That doesn't mean that bacteria are anti-creationist leftists. That's just what they do.

The climate continues to get warmer. That doesn't mean that our atmosphere has liberal leanings. It's just what's happening.

Kids with same-sex parents do as well as any other sort of kid. Revealing that makes you a left-leaner.

>Every fucking statement I make has to be backed up by the results of a study?

Not at all. But if you claim it's fact, not opinion, don't expect anyone to take it seriously if it flies in the face of the studies that _are_ out there.

OTOH, if it's just your opinion, then no problem. You are entitled to it.

There ARE studies out there Bill, that don't fit YOUR model of what families should look like. Tell you what... go find them. Do some research. Just because I'm not posting them A) doesn't mean they don't exist and B) doesn't discredit anything I've said. If you look, you'll find them.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric
> Assiciation are widely known for theirleftist liberal leanings.

And the American Academy of Pediatrics? And Tufts?

From PFLAG's website:

American College of Pediatricians



This is a small splinter group of medical professionals who do not support the mainstream view of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) that homosexuality is a normal aspect of human diversity. The organization was formed in 2002 in opposition to the AAP's support of adoption by LGBT parents. The College believes that allowing LGBT adoption is "dangerously irrresponsible."

Yeah, I'd call the AAP "leftist." Definitely.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,009]

>Tell you what... go find them.

I looked. Didn't find much. A google search of "same sex parents" children turned up 150,000 hits. The first page:
-----------------
Facts About Kids with Gay Parents - basic facts; neutral.

Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Same-sex marriage: How do children fare? - This is a religious site, and they claim that there's no hard evidence either way. But the evidence does show that "it appears as if the advantages or disadvantages, for those children who live in families led by same-sex couples, are relatively minor."

SAME-SEX PARENTING - Same as the above link. (Google does this sometimes.)

Adoption by same-sex couples - Wikipedia article. "The majority of peer-reviewed studies support the conclusion that, under similar socioeconomic conditions, children raised by same-sex couples are comparable to those raised by opposite-sex couples in terms of their mental and physical health." The one dissenting study claimed that a higher percentage of gay men and women have a psychiatric disorder, and thus make unfit parents. In men it was 36% to 28%. ("Psychiatric disorder" includes issues like stress.)

Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally - mental health site.

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Same-sex marriage - says there's no difference

Same-sex parenting: Does a mom & dad make a difference? - An article by the Baptist Press. They list several reasons why same-sex parents are a bad idea, including that foster parents abuse children more often, and the children may be more likely to "go gay."

AAP News Release - AAP Says Children of Same-sex Couples Deserve Two Legally Married Parents - position paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Court grants equal rights to same-sex parents - article on a court decision to allow same-sex parents the same rights as heterosex parents.
--------------------

So go for it. Find some studies and post em and we can discuss them. Until then, your opinion is certainly noted, but it's not much of a basis for discussion.