Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
quitting college and dropping out are the same thing.
Dropping out - forced to not go to college due to poor performance and/or grades
Quitting - choosing not to attend anymore, to pursue other interests .
There is a difference
and the Article says he withdrew. He didn't drop out. he withdrew so he could write his book. Its a bestseller. Most times, there is no need to complete college if you're already earning a ton of money off a book you wrote.
I quit college, even though I maintained a 4.0 GPA . I already had my job, and experience was worth more to my employer than an actual degree. 15 years later, and I earn more money than some of my college classmates.
Quote:
just out of interest, what kind of salary does 'activism' pay these days?
how common is it at home, for the child of a homo couple to interact in any meaningful way with adults of a hetero persuasion?
How will a kid know whether he is supposed to fancy girls or boys?
Are you kidding? Gay and lesbian people have friends and family too of the 'hetero persuasion'. Kids go to school, have friends, are exposed to society through all sorts of groups, movies, books, tv etc....You make it sound like they are isolated from the rest of the world.
As for how will a "kid know whether he is supposed to fancy girls or boys'. It's how their brains
developed while they were a fetus in the womb which directs that.
you mean all the evidence from 'reputable' gay propaganda sources
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and pretty much every professional health association worldwide etc etc are 'gay propaganda sources' now?
Are all peer-reviewed Journals like The Journal of Marriage and Family a 'gay propaganda source' too?
We already know that you gay bashers think anyone who doesn't agree with your prejudiced ignorant views must automatically be gay, but now you think millions of health professionals are also gay?
so how many hetero adults will be staying the night, or waking the kids up in the morning?
Once the daytime social activities are over, these poor little mites will be closed in with the homo couple and their homo friends - not natural.
Oh yes children don't have sleepovers with their friends. They don't watch TV in their homes. They don't read books and/or magazines in their homes. Yes those poor little mites whose parents give them a hug and maybe a kiss good night, possibly read them a bed time story as they fall asleep
how unnatural.
Thanks for a good example of how the anti-gay brigade use misrepresentation and lies- especcially from religious-based anti-gay groups like the FRC who use non-science based propaganda from non-experts in the field.
Please point out one misrepresentation or lie. The flaws in pro-gay findings which he identified would seem to be vaild: inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research subjects, self-presentation bias, and lack of longitudinal follow-up.
Quote:
Timothy Dailey's PhD is in Theology. He is from the well known hate-group FRC. His other books are on topics like secret codes in the Bible.
Noam Chomsky's PhD is in Linguistics, yet many progressives cite him as an incisive critic of American foreign policy. Linus Pauling was a physicist, yet many anti-nuclear activists and natural food faddists followed his opinions on pacifism and mega doses of Vitamin C. And who says the Family Research Council is a hate group, aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I and others on this Forum have debunked as selective and biased?
Quote:
That piece of laughable rubbish by Dailey has been deconstructed and discredited many times.
It could NEVER be published in a reputable peer-reviewed Journal.
Again, I'd like to see how it qualifies as rubbish, and remain skeptical of the unquestioned credibility which is given to every pro-gay piece of special pleading, and the showering of fascistic hatred (like yours) which greets any questioning of the values, motives, or mental hygiene of homosexuals, homosexuality, and its many manifestations in our culture.
Are you claiming that homosexuals do not experience ANY social, mental or physical problems? That their lives are trouble-free, of normal length, and not attendant with higher rates of disease and depression? That every adoptive child in a homosexual home is completely free from emotional and physical harm and developmental concerns? And that anyone who calls attention to these facts is homophobic? That we are, that is, to simply remain mum and be frightened into silence because we're afraid you'll call us names?
If so, I've got news for you: no amount of hatred and vituperation from you or anyone else is going to silence me on this topic. I haven't the slightest interest in what, who, or how many you sleep with, or what you do in the privacy of your home. But when you try to control the argument to the extent that anyone who presents an opposing viewpoint is insulted, mocked, and called stupid and a hater, you and I are going to go round and round. And I am not alone.
how common is it at home, for the child of a homo couple to interact in any meaningful way with adults of a hetero persuasion?
Very. I doubt there's a single gay parent who doesn't have heterosexual friends and/or family members... myself being one of those friends, and in one case I became an "Auntie" (and frequent confidant) to the daughter. She was the natural-born daughter of a lesbian, btw, so it's not like she didn't already have a female role model - speaking of which, are you assuming they never have children of their own gender? How does your weak argument apply to them?
Are you claiming that homosexuals do not experience ANY social, mental or physical problems? That their lives are trouble-free, of normal length, and not attendant with higher rates of disease and depression? That every adoptive child in a homosexual home is completely free from emotional and physical harm and developmental concerns?
Of course they can experience problems like anyone else, and you are free to point out those facts... it's only when people use that as an argument against SSM/adoption, all while ignoring that heterosexuals have these issues too, that we generally have to call you out on it. Why is it good for the goose but not for the gander? In other words, how can somebody support heterosexual adoption even with evidence of occasional problems, but not support homosexual adoptions for that same reason? That is the very definition of discrimination, so there's really no other word to use for it!
Quote:
And that anyone who calls attention to these facts is homophobic? That we are, that is, to simply remain mum and be frightened into silence because we're afraid you'll call us names?
There is no reason to remain silent, and I personally try to avoid name-calling unless it's very warranted. But you also should expect some people to respond, and also have to understand the door swings both ways. I've been called nasty things for my support of gay rights, but you don't see me shutting up because of it... as much as some people probably wish I would.
Of course they can experience problems like anyone else, and you are free to point out those facts... it's only when people use that as an argument against SSM/adoption, all while ignoring that heterosexuals have these issues too, that we generally have to call you out on it. Why is it good for the goose but not for the gander? In other words, how can somebody support heterosexual adoption even with evidence of occasional problems, but not support homosexual adoptions for that same reason? That is the very definition of discrimination, so there's really no other word to use for it!
Very simply, because homosexuality and its stresses on sexual identity among the adults, let alone impressionable young children, is not present in a heterosexual family. The latter presents children with a mother and father, the traditional symbols of the union of opposites and exemplars of normal family life and love. It is crucial to discriminate in such cases in favor of what is healthiest and best for the child. Am I arguing that no gay people should ever be able to adopt? Certainly not. But to insist on increased vigilance, to set the bar higher for such unusual unions as potential homes where innocent children -- who may not share the pioneering spirit of their would-be same-sex parents -- are involved? Of course! It would be a dereliction of our duty as responsible adults, regardless of sexual orientation, to argue otherwise. Your reference to gays "experiece(ing) problems like anyone else" is telling. When is the last tie you read about any problems with gay parenting anywhere in the media, aside from the rejection/discrimination/dirty looks they receive from straights?
Quote:
There is no reason to remain silent, and I personally try to avoid name-calling unless it's very warranted. But you also should expect some people to respond, and also have to understand the door swings both ways. I've been called nasty things for my support of gay rights, but you don't see me shutting up because of it... as much as some people probably wish I would.
My experience on this Forum on this topic has been unrelievedly unpleasant due to the unmitigated hatred I have received from nearly every pro-gay poster. They first mock my religion; learning that I am not a Christian, they move on to insult my intelligence; learning that I am as erudite as they are, they call me names or attack my references as "homophobic rubbish" from "hate groups" (which they assume means that they can make assumptions based on their own propaganda, and expect me to take it for truth. When I do not, they become even more furious. This is usually when I get added to "Ignore" lists. Their loss.).
I also find it very suspicious whenever I encounter a controversial sociopolitical movement which has effectively silenced virtually all reputable media criticism of its methodology, goals, and motivation. As a life-long skeptic, I cannot help but perceive any monolithic social movement composed largely of relatively wealthy individuals, which has achieved immunity from said media criticism, to be more like a vehicle of oppression than of the oppressed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
