Who thinks Sheep might be repressing something?

California’s radical judicial activism at its finest, yes. Even if you were ignorant of the domestic partnership laws that already grant complete equal rights, there have been several San Francisco Gay attorneys on local and national news in the last week who acknowledge it, and whereby the activist’s will continue to conceal their real goal, the discrediting and or abolishment of religion. Yet another unfortunate division of people for political purpose: divide and conquer.

Here in Palm Springs, a magnet for utopian alternative lifestyles, I work commonly within the ranks of the likeminded. I care about all my customers and support them all to a point, yet. A half dozen or so are ardent political activists with two at the national level, and where insightful debate has been a pleasure with the latter. Although they will not admit to the position personally, they do confide the general consensus within the ranks.

The mantra “separate but not equal” are their national talking points, and where religion is viewed at the last bastion of opposition that would otherwise completely legitimize alternative lifestyles. In the end legal rights are not enough.

Memo to Jack: Your references do not include the many historical homosexual activists’ political manipulations of the APA. By absence you only serve to dish the same type of propaganda found as SOP on the nightly news. Absence of contextual reference is pure bias. Take solace, I’m sure your ACLU card will never be a question.

When Activism Masquerades as Science:
Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions

“Consider those who were appointed to the committee: Armand Cerbone who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and was recognized for the distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues; Beverly Green, editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Kristen Hancock who developed "Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients"; Lawrence A. Kurdek Editorial Board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Psychology and Candace A. McCullough-- whose partner, Sharon Duchesneau, was artificially inseminated from a deaf sperm donor to make it highly likely that their children would be born deaf because of their belief that deafness is not a medical condition but a cultural identity!”

The committee members were hardly an unbiased group!

http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html

It should be noted I am agnostic, yet support traditional marriage and the fundamental religious institutions our country was founded upon.

quote:

Originally posted by Day Breaker:...the activist’s will continue to conceal their real goal, the discrediting and or abolishment of religion...
...I am agnostic, yet support traditional marriage and the fundamental religious institutions our country was founded upon.

Paranoia or schitzophrenia.
You gotta choose.

Personally I think religion (organized or new age) is superstition no better than the belief in leprechauns, vampires, the titans or spiderman.

...but it will never go away and it comforts people that are confronted with life`s obstacles, failures and milestones.

quote:

Originally posted by SHEEPSHEAD BAY:
Mythology is just that mythology and in real life we can not reproduce with the same gender.You don't think homosexuality impacts or threatens society.Stop and think about this for a moment. If everyone became a homosexual and no one had sex with the opposite gender.Unable to reproduce how long would the human race continue.Homosexuals unable to reproduce naturally have found other ways to assure the survival of their culture for lack of a better word. Reproducing threw the heterosexual population and adopting children and instilling their way of life in the children they raise.Wow i took this thought in another direction thanks James debating this with you has allowed me to see things in a different way. I still do not approve of it but i am starting to understand their mentality.All the benefits of a marriage between a man and a women the precious gift of a child although theirs is not formed passionately threw the love making process.Thanks to modern technology and the help of Liberal law makers they can continue to play Daddy and Daddy or Mommy and Mommy for generations to come talk about undermining.

Yeah, but everybody will not be homosexual. No matter what, I do not see homosexuals ever becoming the majority, or even close. Maybe you would see an increase in bisexuality, but I do not think the human race would be in any type of danger.

In the modern world, there are very few gender specific roles.

You're correct, kids should have a father and mother in the home where the mother stays home and raises the child, but this isn't how it works anymore. You have many,many different family structures that produce healthly children.

Day Breaker, when you say you're agnostic, but support traditional marriage, that's a problem since you are appealing to tradition. Just because that's the way it's always been does not mean it's best and should stay that way. People used to think slavery was good and it's the way the country was founded, but we know now it's a bad thing to have.

quote:

When Activism Masquerades as Science:
Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions

Uh-huh. And that part of your post is from the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (italics mine). For those who don't know, NARTH is an organization that encourages gay men and women to undergo treatment to "cure" their homosexuality, in their view, a "mental disorder". It's called 'reparative therapy'.

I'll stick with real science, thanks.

Oh. And DayBreaker, thanks for the memo, but as far as my ACLU card is concerned, it should never be a question. My dues are paid.

Damn! I posted again, didn't I, though I said I was through with this thread. Well ... sue me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,

Is it just my lack of searching skills, or did Sheepie delete the post where he was making bigoted slurs against gays and lesbians?

Can anyone find it?

quote:

Originally posted by Scottological:
Is it just my lack of searching skills, or did Sheepie delete the post where he was making bigoted slurs against gays and lesbians?

Can anyone find it?

No, it's gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Two reasonably thorough reports with similar results by organizations without an agenda:

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Psychological Association

Jack, I hardly call these articles "real science" or anything remotely close. These are not research articles. They are opinion articles. There is no data in any of them.

quote:

Jack, I hardly call these articles "real science" or anything remotely close. These are not research articles. They are opinion articles. There is no data in any of them.

Well, I didn't label them 'research articles', though they certainly reference and cite a lot of study data. They aren't "opinion" articles, rather they're a review and compendium of the conclusion of a lot of pertinent research -- real science -- they use when they're asked to weigh in on the subject of same-sex parenting. The 'Research Evidence' section of the AAP's article is a good example.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Well, I didn't label them 'research articles', though they certainly reference and cite a lot of study data. They aren't "opinion" articles, rather they're a review and compendium of the conclusion of a lot of pertinent research -- real science -- they use when they're asked to weigh in on the subject of same-sex parenting. The 'Research Evidence' section of the AAP's article is a good example.

You certainly refer to them as "real" science, do you not?

Yes, they are opinion articles. They present their point of view, with select publications cited in support of. In the research community, we view these types of articles as opinion.

quote:

Yes, they are opinion articles. They present their point of view, with select publications cited in support of. In the research community, we view these types of articles as opinion.

Then I accede to your expertise and your definition. Not being a member of the research community, my use of 'opinion' was the type found in an op-ed commentary, or an expression of personal beliefs that can't be quantified or proven.

My view was that the AAP and APA articles referenced and provided a means for us to access existing scientific research ("real science") that made definitive conclusions about same-sex parenting. I'd submit those professional associations didn't set out to locate sources to support a pre-existing point of view; rather, they formed their point of view based on the available scientific evidence on the subject. No?

If there are serious, scientifically-valid studies that indicate same-sex parenting results in developmentally disabled children, I'm unaware of it.

quote:

Is it just my lack of searching skills, or did Sheepie delete the post where he was making bigoted slurs against gays and lesbians?

Can anyone find it?

I thought you where done Scott.As usual talking out of the wrong orifice.The post is still there you can't find it i will bet thats not the only thing in life you have a hard time finding. Glad to see your out of the Closet.

quote:

Originally posted by Day Breaker:
California’s radical judicial activism at its finest, yes. Even if you were ignorant of the domestic partnership laws that already grant complete equal rights, there have been several San Francisco Gay attorneys on local and national news in the last week who acknowledge it, and whereby the activist’s will continue to conceal their real goal, the discrediting and or abolishment of religion. Yet another unfortunate division of people for political purpose: divide and conquer.

Domestic partnership laws are good and noble things - an excellent compromise for a class of people who only a generation ago were virtually excluded from public life. That said, it smacks a little of "separate but equal" and becomes, in practice, not equal at all, but a sort of second class semi-marriage. In some cases, companies, pension plans, and even the federal government, extend benefits only to married couples, period. There is no box for "are you in a domestic partnership arrangement?"

I'd also argue that a marriage between gays or lesbians is a marriage in fact. It is identical to a hetero marriage in every way save for the presence of a different set of genitals on one of the participants. In other words, a "gay marriage" is not like, or merely analogous to, a marriage we share as hetero couples - it is a marriage.

California is simply acknowledging this fact. A special kind of relationship exists between these two people. As a state, we are thus bound to treat them as a single entity for purposes of this or that. To use a crass metaphor, it's sort of like them acknowledging another sort of corporate entity or business partnership.

Also, the CA supreme court's decision has no bearing on religious institutions. A particular church is under no more obligation to marry a gay couple of which they disapprove than they are to marry, say, a Jew and a Buddhist. The rights of the religious institutions to refuse couples still stand.

As to the gay agenda, I think this claim is just bizarre. My gay friends, at least, aren't out to undermine religion. Their agenda is pretty simple:

1) Not be fired from a job because they're gay.

2) Not be denied housing because they're gay.

3) And have the state recognize their relationships with their partners.

In other words, nothing other than what we as heteros would expect for ourselves.

quote:

The post is still there

No it isn't.

If you didn't take down your hateful references to "Bologna Smokers" and "Rug Munchers", the board moderators did.

quote:

Yeah, but everybody will not be homosexual. No matter what, I do not see homosexuals ever becoming the majority, or even close. Maybe you would see an increase in bisexuality, but I do not think the human race would be in any type of danger.

Agreed i just took it as far as the imaginations would allow.The worse case scenario which is indeed a dim view of society as a whole. Still in all i can't help but think children raised in any environment take some of it with them into adulthood.Stop and think the mannerisms culture rituals that have been passed down from your parents to yourself.The displays of affection between two same sex parents.Viewed on a daily basis has to impact the child to some degree causing confusion.The simple custom for men of shaking hands as opposed to kissing on the lips is one that comes to my mind . Not to mention either the masculinity or feminine issues associated with each gender.I personally just don't get it why anyone living that lifestyle would want children in the first place.In the sense that their lifestyle does not in any way conform to a heterosexuals.Children are a direct result of living the heterosexual life style.I guess it is just like anything else pick out the pieces of it you want and throw the rest away.That pretty much sums up the world as a whole.

quote:

No it isn't.

Top of page three Jack.
If it offends you you can complain about it like all the rest of the Liberal Gay sympathizers have.If nothing else comes out of this thread at least everyone is out of the closet.And that is a good thing no one should ever be ashamed of the life they have chosen.If one does something they are ashamed of than that means it was wrong.Thats the way my Heterosexual parents bought me up at least.How about you Jack?

quote:

Top of page three Jack.

The top of page 3 is Scott's quote from your post. Your post itself is gone.

I guess the media is only Liberal when it suits there purpose after all Hey Jack?

To say that the CA Supreme Court's decision has no bearing on religious institutions only serves to illustrate that one has no fundamental / historical understanding of this country, or otherwise that one is just stupid.