# Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

The American Psychological Association says:


> Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.


People who want to stop gay couples from adopting children can eat it (my shorts, that is).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Think you've silenced those holding an opposing view? LOL - good luck with that.

BTW, for what it's worth, I don't disagree with the APA view.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

I think that gay, lesbian and bisexuals can be fantastic parents. From what I can see, it all has to do with the person themselves - just as there are plenty of straight people that wouldn't be good parents, the same applies to gay, lesbian and bisexuals.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I would hazard a guess, and it's obviously just a guess, that children raised in an "alternative" lifestyle home are probably more socially accepting. Being raised in an environment that includes different views can only help to increase the level of acceptance over time. Perhaps this is why so many are so afraid of this.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

To quote part of your quote:


> find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends.


Hmmm. It seems that many kids are having struggles that could be alleviated by better parenting. So if people following "alternative" lifestyles are able to raise kids that reveal no diffs with those raised by heterosexuals, then it just proves that the ability to suck at parenting is not dependent on sexual orientation. O well.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*What's Left*



guytoronro said:


> People who want to stop gay couples from adopting children can eat it (my shorts, that is).
> 
> I've lost my pants.


What's left, leaves little to the imagination I'd say.


----------



## wooglin (Mar 26, 2005)

Let's add that chances are probably better that a gay or lesbian couple would statistically make *better* parents.

No chance of having kids 'accidentally', a reduced or zero chance of an unwanted pregnancy? Makes sense?


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

I'd like to think that as the child of a lesbian couple, I turned out just fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say my learned acceptance of differing races, religions, and sexual habituations comes from my mom(s).

They never forced anything on me, and were even accepting of the fact that for several years during high school I wouldn't let them hold hands at school meetings, plays etc.

Eventually I came around to being proud of them, and very supportive.

The APA only confirms a common sense. Individuals in couples, regardless of their sexual preferences either have or don't have what it takes to make great parents- same for single parents. Some of the most interesting, provocative and brilliant friends I had came from broken homes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy, where's the study associated with the conclusion?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> it just proves that the ability to suck at parenting is not dependent on sexual orientation. O well.


Oh I like that. Equal discrimination  totally true tho, parents suck no matter who they are  (I'll be one of those sucky parents too, don't worry! I'm bound to screw up once, twice, a million times.)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Guy, where's the study associated with the conclusion?


Here are some studies and reviews for you:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstgenerally.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgprevspec.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgprevgenerally.html

comments?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think a healthy upbringing requires that a child have both male and female rolemodels.

I think it is important for same sex couples to ensure the children have interactions with somebody of the opposite sex on a routine basis.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think a healthy upbringing requires that a child have both male and female rolemodels.
> 
> I think it is important for same sex couples to ensure the children have interactions with somebody of the opposite sex on a routine basis.


Why?
Really.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I think a healthy upbringing requires that a child have both male and female rolemodels


On what basis.....the studies don't bear that out and in many societies even with het marriages in name the boys and girls are segregated both from each other and much involvement with the opposite sex parent.

I WOULD agree that exposure to opposite sex teachers and figures of authority is desirable.
I would also favour uni - sex classes in certain age ranges of kids- the benefits have been marked where tried as girls mature very differently than boys and each has challenges in certain age ranges.

One size fits all doesn't.

But if you refer to role models required within the family of each sex I'd disagree.
Outside the family, yes I think useful not critical.


----------



## Luc Tremblay (Jul 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think a healthy upbringing requires that a child have both male and female rolemodels.
> 
> I think it is important for same sex couples to ensure the children have interactions with somebody of the opposite sex on a routine basis.



Lets ban monoparentality!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think it is important for same sex couples to ensure the children have interactions with somebody of the opposite sex on a routine basis.


Unless a kid lives in a basement, they would have interactions with neighbors and teachers. Seems reasonable enough. And no study shows that it is even required.

Unless of course your goal is to ensure an education in gender stereotyping. Honestly, what can a child learn from a man he or she couldn't learn from a woman, and vice-versa?


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Yes, yes they can.

The idea of having both male and female role models is not wrong, but there is no reason for those role models to be your parents. I should mention I would think most of my role models weren't my parents-- I have plenty of role models, and yes I've learned a great deal about "being a man" from male role models other than my Dad... damn, I've learned a great deal about that from female role models!

If this is a concern for good parenting, and not some staunch crypto-homophobic intolerance campaign, focus on advocating for children to be raised in community with their neighbours, relatives, etc.

In fact you'll find pretty quickly that homophobia doesn't help you in making friends in your community, especially if your children grow up to learn that LBGTQ folks are in some way lesser than them. So you might as well bag it: for the sake of the children.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

VD, I'd apply that to all families. If boys' role models are like Homer Simpson, and girls' like Paris Hilton, that would be a shame. 

The notion can also cause cultural difficulties where a "rolemodel" is something very different than others would assume. Not an easy issue to tackle, as I've seen firsthand as a first-generation Canadian-born kid with many similarly (but less mixed) friends of the family.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think a healthy upbringing requires that a child have both male and female rolemodels.
> 
> I think it is important for same sex couples to ensure the children have interactions with somebody of the opposite sex on a routine basis.


Absolutely right! These lesbian-only cities and homosexual-only towns just aren't working out. Integrate, people, integrate!

It takes a village, indeed (or the Village People's well-adjusted children--studies show).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. Male and female role models are essential. Hard to believe anyone would think otherwise. Just because a kid has two moms or two dads does not preclude the wisdom of having a strong mentor of the opposite sex making regular appearances in the child's life.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Max said:


> Agreed. Male and female role models are essential. Hard to believe anyone would think otherwise. Just because a kid has two moms or two dads does not preclude the wisdom of having a strong mentor of the opposite sex making regular appearances in the child's life.


I'm just curious to know with which bit of wit or wisdom you happened to be agreeing.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL... reading that back I can see how anyone would be confused. How's this... I'm all in favour of kids from SS unions having strong role models representing both genders. I just don't think you have to have one of each in a single family in order for it to work. That any better?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'll ask the question again:

Why does it matter what gender the role-model is?

Why does a child need a male and female role-model? Are we teaching kids that the way people behave is different based on their gender?

Or are people still stuck in the mindset of "men teach agressiveness" and "women teach nuturing"?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Max said:


> LOL... reading that back I can see how anyone would be confused. How's this... I'm all in favour of kids from SS unions having strong role models representing both genders. I just don't think you have to have one of each in a single family in order for it to work. That any better?


I'm in favour of SS parents as well. I just think those parents need to take extra care to make sure their kids have rolemodels of the opposite sex. 

You learn to be a man from another man, not a woman. The same goes for the opposite situation.

I agree with the concept of 'it takes a village'.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Vandave said:


> I'm in favour of SS parents as well. I just think those parents need to take extra care to make sure their kids have rolemodels of the opposite sex.
> 
> You learn to be a man from another man, not a woman. The same goes for the opposite situation.
> 
> I agree with the concept of 'it takes a village'.


Wouldn't agree there. I think there are a lot of Mom's that have a better understanding and ability to teach a son what it _really_ means to be a man.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Are we teaching kids that the way people behave is different based on their gender?


You don't need to teach it because it is the reality of the human condition. Men are from Mars and Woman from Venus.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Wouldn't agree there. I think there are a lot of Mom's that have a better understanding and ability to teach a son what it _really_ means to be a man.


I bet you pee sitting down on the toilet. :lmao:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

All kidding aside, I agree that it takes a village. And no, a woman can't teach a boy how to be a man like a man can; she certainly try and I commend that - but she can only go so far. Same goes for a man teaching a little girl how to be a woman. Role models of the same gender as the child are important.

Hope that doesn't sound too traditional but if it does, so be it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I bet you pee sitting down on the toilet. :lmao:


Likely not, but he knows how to be a gentleman and put it down after he's finished..


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Max said:


> All kidding aside, I agree that it takes a village. And no, a woman can't teach a boy how to be a man like a man can; she certainly try and I commend that - but she can only go so far. Same goes for a man teaching a little girl how to be a woman. Role models of the same gender as the child are important.
> 
> Hope that doesn't sound too traditional but if it does, so be it.


Please give me a * very specific* example, of something that a man can teach a boy, that a woman can not teach a boy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Please give me a * very specific* example, of something that a man can teach a boy, that a woman can not teach a boy.


Throw a ball. I have yet to see a girl throw a ball properly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Please give me a * very specific* example, of something that a man can teach a boy, that a woman can not teach a boy.


Talking less.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ahhh... yes. You're a shining example of what a man is. How about some more example?

No sense in me arguing the point. You're doing just fine on your own.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Please give me a * very specific* example, of something that a man can teach a boy, that a woman can not teach a boy.


Cast a fishing line.

Shoot a hockey puck.

Bait a hook.

Tune up the car.

Change a tire.

Whistle.

I could go on.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I think those stereotypes are so hoary they're almost ready for the grave. I don't take the mayor's side but your examples are pretty durned hidebound. You just gotta get out more, man! I mean, seriously - change a tire? _Whistle?_

Ay yi yi.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Ahhh... yes. You're a shining example of what a man is. How about some more example?
> 
> No sense in me arguing the point. You're doing just fine on your own.


And what are you trying to prove? That the male brain and female brain are the same? That the differences we observe between males and females are all societal?

Please. :lmao: 

You need to spend more time with children if you think that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Please give me a * very specific* example, of something that a man can teach a boy, that a woman can not teach a boy.


Gut and filet a fish.

Handle a firearm safely.

Track big game.

Shoot big game.

Gut and skin big game.

Drive most heavy farm machinery.

Operate a home welder.

Repair farm machinery.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Ahhh... yes. You're a shining example of what a man is. How about some more example?
> 
> No sense in me arguing the point. You're doing just fine on your own.


Okay nobody's jumping on the 'less talking' issue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=419040&in_page_id=1879


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Cast a fishing line.
> 
> Shoot a hockey puck.
> 
> ...


I'm glad my mother never taught me to be sexist... as all of your examples clearly are.  I'm sure you'd have the bawls to say that if front of the Canadian Women's Gold medal hockey team and their female coach. 

And it was my mom who took me fishing most often when I was a kid and my mom who taught my kids to fish at the cottage this summer. 

My oil was changed and tires rotated at the Jiffy Lube by a woman last week. 

All of your examples are very poor, and me thinks you're grasping.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc, I think those stereotypes are so hoary they're almost ready for the grave. I don't take the mayor's side but your examples are pretty durned hidebound. You just gotta get out more, man! I mean, seriously - change a tire? _Whistle?_
> 
> Ay yi yi.


Max, in spite of what you may think, there are parts of Canada that do the types of things I refer to every single day. And that type of knowledge takes a man to teach.

And oh yeah, when is the last time you saw a woman changing her own tire? My bet is it wasn't in the centre of the universe?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> I'm glad my mother never taught me to be sexist... as all of your examples clearly are.  I'm sure you'd have the bawls to say that if front of the Canadian Women's Gold medal hockey team and their female coach.
> 
> And it was my mom who took me fishing most often when I was a kid and my mom who taught my kids to fish at the cottage this summer.
> 
> ...


No my point is that for every woman you can find who can do the things I listed, you will find 90% who can't. That is the reality. Certainly there are some women who can, but they are few and far between. Most women consider those type of activities "men's roles", just like men consider women to be better "shoppers".


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I'm glad my mother never taught me to be sexist... as all of your examples clearly are.  I'm sure you'd have the bawls to say that if front of the Canadian Women's Gold medal hockey team and their female coach.
> 
> And it was my mom who took me fishing most often when I was a kid and my mom who taught my kids to fish at the cottage this summer.
> 
> ...


EhMax, I think you need to differentiate between equal opportunity and equal outcome. I am all for giving women a chance to do all the 'manly' things she wants to do. 

I bring my motorbike to a shop that has a female mechanic.

I learned to fish, gut a fish, fire a gun, drive a truck/tractor from my aunt. 

But the reality is that most females have little interest in these activities. And the reality is that they are born this way, not just raised. If you interacted with young kids like my wife does, you would see that it isn't just a social pressure that makes boys and girls different. Boys are naturally agressive and females are naturally talkactive and learn communication skills more quickly.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I'd love to see two men explaining or even comprehending what a young girl is going through when she first starts her period. That would be rich!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Vandave said:


> And what are you trying to prove? That the male brain and female brain are the same? That the differences we observe between males and females are all societal?
> 
> Please. :lmao:
> 
> You need to spend more time with children if you think that.


I'm not trying to prove that people all have different biological and psychological differences. A moron can see that. Are you implying that these differences are based on if a child was exposed to a male x amount of time vs xx amount of time? That if a child is around females more, they won't be able to throw a ball, or that they will talk to much? 

All arguments so far a completely full of hot air, and are based on sexist attitudes as opposed to any shred of logic. 

And FYI, I'm a father of 3 and from a family of 5 and my wife ran a home daycare for 5 years, so I've probably seen much more than you have.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> No my point is that for every woman you can find who can do the things I listed, you will find 90% who can't. That is the reality. Certainly there are some women who can, but they are few and far between. Most women consider those type of activities "men's roles", just like men consider women to be better "shoppers".


OMG SINC....  

You have no idea how thankful I am that my 3 girls are being raised thousands of kilometers away from your "neck of the woods."  Or whatever weird time warp you're living in. 

I'm cringing reading the comments in this thread.


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

The only thing a boy needs to learn from a man is how to respect a woman.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Vandave said:


> EhMax, I think you need to differentiate between equal opportunity and equal outcome. I am all for giving women a chance to do all the 'manly' things she wants to do.
> 
> I bring my motorbike to a shop that has a female mechanic.
> 
> ...



First of all, thanks for arguing and discrediting your own points about the mechanic and fish thing. Yes, woman are completely capable of doing those things, and if they put their minds to it, could very well do a much better job than a guy. 

Now, if there were two women with a child, and they made the conscious decision to really want a child to love, nurture, and raise. And say this child really wanted to learn about fixing a car, or learn about putting a friggin worm on a hook, do you honestly think this child would be denied? Do you honestly think two loving parents would deny their child anything? Your argument thus far, is that a child would somehow be denied or short changed, because you think women aren't interested in changing a tire, or because some men are uncomfortable talking about a menstrual cycle to their daughter?

You're arguments are weak at best, and are very thin veils to try and cover sexist and homophobic opinions, not, in my opinion, because of any real concern over the well being of children being raised. 

The studies have been presented in black and white before you.


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

SINC said:


> No my point is that for every woman you can find who can do the things I listed, you will find 90% who can't. That is the reality. Certainly there are some women who can, but they are few and far between.


The only reason for this is that there are still many (though fewer than ever) ignorant men who only teach their sons how to do the things you listed while it is assumed their daughters will, instead, want to shop and clean and cook with their moms.

Fortunately, my father, brother, spouse, and my many male friends are not so ignorant...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I'm not trying to prove that people all have different biological and psychological differences. A moron can see that. Are you implying that these differences are based on if a child was exposed to a male x amount of time vs xx amount of time? That if a child is around females more, they won't be able to throw a ball, or that they will talk to much?
> 
> All arguments so far a completely full of hot air, and are based on sexist attitudes as opposed to any shred of logic.


Not so much me as what I have read about how children learn. Boys learn more from male teachers and girls learn more from female teachers. Since most elementary school teachers are female, it isn't a surprise that males are getting left behind and score worse than females on standardized tests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14546994/

OK... so now we have a link between learning and gender.

But, let's also keep in mind that school tests only measure academic performance. This is only a percentage of what children learn in school. School tests don't measure socialization and interaction,which are arguably as or more important than academics.

I think differences in gender learning will be greater in the socialization and interaction components, when compared to academics. 

See the logic now?



ehMax said:


> And FYI, I'm a father of 3 and from a family of 5 and my wife ran a home daycare for 5 years, so I've probably seen much more than you have.


Probably. But you agree with me, so it's a moot point.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ehMax said:


> First of all, thanks for arguing and discrediting your own points about the mechanic and fish thing. Yes, woman are completely capable of doing those things, and if they put their minds to it, could very well do a much better job than a guy.


Anytime... errr no...

You missed my point about equal opportunity versus equal outcome. I agree that everybody deserves equal opportunity, but I don't expect equal outcomes.

I never said that a female doing 'male' tasks would be worse at it, aside from a field involving physical activity. The male body is more capable when it comes to strength and speed. When it comes to things like fishing and mechanics, a female will peform just as good as a male.



ehMax said:



> You're arguments are weak at best, and are very thin veils to try and cover sexist and homophobic opinions, not, in my opinion, because of any real concern over the well being of children being raised.
> 
> The studies have been presented in black and white before you.


I can see how you would label me as sexist (i.e. you don't understand my view). But, where does homophobia come into it?

The irony of your accusation is that a gay friend of mine expressed his opinion that children raised by same sex parents (or which his sister is one) should be exposed to both male and female role models. I guess that makes him homophobic and sexist as well.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ehMax said:


> The studies have been presented in black and white before you.


The APA also published a study claiming that based on their analysis of child-molestation studies, that "the negative effects [of sexual abuse] were neither pervasive nor typically intense." This was the conclusion of "A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples."

The Man Boy Love Association were delighted. 

If they can somehow see an older man sodomizing a young boy as somehow being benign, their credibility on any study regarding what is good for children is highly suspect in my books. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I'd love to see two men explaining or even comprehending what a young girl is going through when she first starts her period. That would be rich!


First of all what you know about it. 

Second of all I did just fine thank you 

Wow the dinousaurs in rut here.....

Some kids with excellent role models turn out to be terrors and others in the worst of circumstances turn out to be model citzens.
Our genes equip kids far better than a brief parent stint.

Girls and boy do employ different strategies right from birth - that's hard wired.
They'll be interested in what their interested in and about the only thing you can do is enrich the environment and let them figure out what they like.

Beyond that you're into the kind of damage of making a leftie right handed or forcing a same sex attraction into heterosexual.......verges on abuse.

It's remarkable kids survive parents sane at all.

I'd say SS parents put a LOT of thought into it and likely do no better or worse than any others.....which sort of illuminates my point.

Have fun while you have them in your care, let them be who they are and marvel at what they become....good or bad....it's mostly not you.

BTW Sinc ....there probably has yet to be a man that Annie Oakley could not shoot rings around......and yet she was a proper Victorian lady allin the same package.

Lucky for us all she has the opportunity - she's an enduring marvel.

BTW THIS GUY










knits.....care to make an issue of it......


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> And oh yeah, when is the last time you saw a woman changing her own tire? My bet is it wasn't in the centre of the universe?


 LOL... it was indeed in the centre of the universe. Man oh man, my hood is lesbian central. Not a lot of gals of 'that certain persuasion' are hanging about like damsels in distress, waiting in vain for some man to help them out. No, they go to town and simply do what you evidently think it impossible of them to do. Two houses down from me the gals have matching Harleys. One of them is quite handy with engines... seen her working on their bikes on many a sunny weekend afternoon. Then there's my het buddies out in the country. The female half of that married couple looks fine in motorcycle leathers and is signing up to take a safety course in racing. Guess she just likes to ride her own bike, rather than simply be a passenger. Oh, and she's a [email protected] knitter. Dyes her own wool and runs her own knitting business. How's _that_ for mixing up your stereotypes?

Necessity is the mother of invention, Sinc. I really needn't be reminding you of this. People be what they want to be... they don't artifically limit themselves by saying wistful nonsense like... _dang! I wanted to be a mechanic but I don't have a penis!_


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc... forgot to mention. One of the two motorcycle mama lesbians on my street... well (wait for it) _she works for the CBC!_ I thought you should be apprised of the sordid facts... more fuel for your fire, donchaknow.

LOL


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> BTW Sinc ....there probably has yet to be a man that Annie Oakley could not shoot rings around......and yet she was a proper Victorian lady allin the same package.
> 
> Lucky for us all she has the opportunity - she's an enduring marvel.
> 
> ...


So she was, but she like he, was/is one in a million.

I still maintain 90% of women have no interest in the types of activities I mention, and therefore posses no skills to pass on to boys, or girls for that matter, in those areas.

To prove different will be very difficult.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I dare say Sinc 90% of an urban population of either sex has zero interest either....perhaps it's more a judgement about odd men....maybe women are more sensible in the first place. They DO multi-task better.

The general trend is that women do a better job in many areas traditionally the strong hold of the male.....and YOU of all people should recall women's role in the war in the factories and farms.
They did it all.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I can change my own tire--and I've done it, too.

My dad can't.
Nor can my brother (though he might be able to figure it out).

Actually, neither of them can do a single thing on either of those lists you put up.

Learning to tune up a car is on my todo lists of things I want to learn in my life; been meaning to take some autobody courses for a long time.

I have no interest in fishing, shooting, hunting or large-scale farming, though welding would be cool. I learned a smidge about welding and soldering in Industrial Arts and during a stained glass course. 

And I am a city girl who lives in the center of the universe.

Can't whistle at all though.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Actually, there is one woman I know who can do every single thing on those lists and enjoys them too--but she's been gender-reassigned, and learned to do most of those things while she was a man. 

Does that count?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I can change my own tire--and I've done it, too.
> 
> My dad can't.
> Nor can my brother (though he might be able to figure it out).
> ...


you can change my spare tire anytime, baby...
:heybaby:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Learning to tune up a car is on my todo lists of things I want to learn in my life; been meaning to take some autobody courses for a long time.
> 
> though welding would be cool. I learned a smidge about welding and soldering in Industrial Arts and during a stained glass course.
> 
> And I am a city girl who lives in the center of the universe.


If by centre of the Universe you mean Toronto, then you should check out Central Tech at Bathurst and Harbord. They have night classes in Auto and Airplane Mechanics, Welding etc.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wow, the sexist attitudes of the dinosaurs in here are astounding.

I know guys who can't pitch a tent, and I know girl who can't sew worth a damn. Those are your typical stereotypes, and the sooner we get over them, the better.

I plan on showing all my kids all the great things in life, like throwing a baseball, changing a tire, and repairing your own damn holy socks.

My wife can't do a lot of that stuff, because her dad viewed her as "just a girl" and never showed her how to do anything. Her mother never let her do anything remotely "dangerous", so she can't even bake! Luckly, she's not averse to learning.

When you stop applying gender stereotypes to activites (like throwing a ball), you will realize anybody can do it.

Come on guys...get your heads out of the 19th century.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Wow, the sexist attitudes of the dinosaurs in here are astounding.
> 
> I know guys who can't pitch a tent, and I know girl who can't sew worth a damn. Those are your typical stereotypes, and the sooner we get over them, the better.
> 
> ...


Hear hear!

:clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Wow, the sexist attitudes of the dinosaurs in here are astounding.
> 
> I know guys who can't pitch a tent, and I know girl who can't sew worth a damn. Those are your typical stereotypes, and the sooner we get over them, the better.
> 
> ...


isn't there a pill for that?
just ask Bob Dole

it's not the 19th century their heads are stuck in
more like the waste area just south of their personal equator


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Throw a ball. I have yet to see a girl throw a ball properly.


You ever watch "A League Of Their Own". Based on true events. And that was in the 40s!



Vandave said:


> Talking less.


Maybe you should lead by example.



SINC said:


> Cast a fishing line. Bait a hook. Gut and filet a fish.


http://fishing.about.com/library/weekly/ftales/bl010723.htm


> In fact (sorry guy’s!) some of the women (and girls), that I have taught or fished with in the past seem to make better anglers than most of the men do when it comes to using certain types of artificial baits and techniques!





SINC said:


> Shoot a hockey puck.


The Canadian Women's Olympic Hockey Team took gold last Olympics.



SINC said:


> Tune up the car. Change a tire.


http://www.sarahlyon.com/calendar/
Glad these girls didn't adhere to stereostypes.



SINC said:


> Whistle.


They can. They just don't whistle at you.



SINC said:


> Handle a firearm safely.


http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=998453


> Her teen years were spent taking care of her son and now in her 30s, D.C.'s next Chief of Police Cathy Lanier tells WTOP that single parenthood helped shaped who she is today.





SINC said:


> Track big game. Shoot big game. Gut and skin big game.


I couldn't do that, and neither could 99% of men living in a big city like Toronto.



SINC said:


> Drive most heavy farm machinery.


Women can't drive?



SINC said:


> Operate a home welder.


None of my friends know how to either.



SINC said:


> Repair farm machinery.


Hands up all ehMacers who can!



MacGuiver said:


> I'd love to see two men explaining or even comprehending what a young girl is going through when she first starts her period. That would be rich!


Single dads have to do it all the time. Two heads are better than one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A minor caveat or two.

Women have a problem throwing the same way as men - joints are built differently - same for running.

Women have less muscle mass than men and that can be overcome to a degree.

Women have far more endurance than men.

They multitask better.

They live longer.

They have better hearing

They are smarter investors
(Women are better at investing in shares than men, research by the financial website DigitalLook, claimed yesterday. The average woman's portfolio has increased in value by 17 per cent in the past 12 months, while the average man has seen his rise by just 11 per cent.)

No one has been able to duplicate Anny Oakley's feats - eye hand is genetic not gender biased.

Drawing a conclusion maybe a two woman family and 3 men family structure might be equivalent 

Did it ever occur to anyone that a sultan might just be a figurehead for the harem power crowd


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

martman said:


> If by centre of the Universe you mean Toronto, then you should check out Central Tech at Bathurst and Harbord. They have night classes in Auto and Airplane Mechanics, Welding etc.


Thanks, martman, I will definitely have to check that out.

I *know* that there are a lot of basic car maintenance things that aren't that hard, I just don't know how to do them. 

And when things go wrong with my car, I'd like to be able to judge what it could be and how serious it is and what it should cost to do without running to the mechanic and trusting my luck. 

Fortunately, I do have a girlfriend in Montreal who used to work part-time at an autobody shop. I usually run my car issues by her to find out if it's a "you can wait a bit" issue or a "your car is about to blow up" issue. She's the one of the only people I regularly talk to who is knowledgeable about cars; I don't really know many men who can tune up their own cars, though a few try to talk like they do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Y'know Sonal....these days it's hardly worth the effort with cars. It's all electronic.
My "tune up" schedule is 160,000 kilometers. 
Use synthetic oil and hit the dealer once in a while....not much else unless you are into old cars as a hobby.

Wanna have some real fun......get your sailplane licence at York Soaring this summer.

Now THAT's worth the effort.

http://www.yorksoaring.com/


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Y'know Sonal....these days it's hardly worth the effort with cars. It's all electronic.
> My "tune up" schedule is 160,000 kilometers.
> Use synthetic oil and hit the dealer once in a while....not much else unless you are into old cars as a hobby.


Yep and if you are like me, you do your own tune ups on a 49 Meteor and a 70 Monte muscle car.

Nearly a lost art now for the average guy, but requires skill and in the case of the flathead V-8 timing in the Meteor, a very good ear for engines.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

My current car is just shy of 10 years old, and I would like to keep it going for a few more years--milage is pretty low and I don't drive a lot. Mostly, it's been trouble-free, but this year, stuff is beginning to go, so for my own security, I want to know if that strange noise is a minor fix, or if the car is about to choke and die.

Example: my transmission started slipping a few months ago, and I was worried that the whole car was toast and I'd have to get a new one. Talked to my friend--she told me it was likely a small leak of some kind, which was typically not too serious. Took it in, she was right.

But the main reason I want to know more about car repair is that when I take it in, and the mechanic tells me "Well, your thingmabob is totally watchimacallit, that'll be about $2,000", and I can respond back with "No way, if my thingambob was watchimacallit, then the whosiwhatsit would be thingamajiggerred. It's got to be the whatdyacallit, and that's no more than $300 to fix, and I'm taking it elsewhere." 

I think I've found a pretty good mechanic, but honestly, how would I know?

Thinking back, I remember years ago (while the car was under warranty) I had a weird problem with it took it back and forth to the dealer several times, and had a few things replaced and they couldn't figure it out--long story, but it took a couple of months and a letter to the owner of the dealership to get everything straightened out, but in the meantime, I had a car that was randomly stalling. 

Later, I was talking to another girlfriend of mine, who turned out to know a fair bit about cars (they had autobody courses at her high school). Some of the stuff they replaced made no sense to her given the problems I was having. I'd have liked to have known that when they were suggesting it to me--at least it was under warranty and it didn't come out of my pocket.

So yeah, I think it's still useful to know this stuff, whether I actually do it or not. 

I know enough about computers to know when someone is suggesting a reasonable course of action to fix something or not, but not enough about cars.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Impossible art on the new ones unless you are into hacking the car computer and serious rice burner mod stuff.

Let's see what remains accessible and satsifying handicrafts worth pursuing and maybe a course.

Photography for sure.

A musical instrument

Home repair

Fine wood working

Cooking - preserves etc

Furniture refinishing

Bicycle tweaking....now that's a serious area.

more...???

••

Sonal I still think it's a bit of a useless game...I've dealt with cars and vehicles for 40 years insluding rebuilding a Ducati on the side of the QEW but if I get a glitch in a tranny ( which I have now in my daughter's car ) I haven't a clue...BUT I have a guy I trust.

I would say in some resepcts and little knowledge in this area might be worse than none and you might overlook something major thinking you know it's a minor hiccup.

That said the web is superb for specific model issues and you can quickly find if there things to have an eye out for.
My daughter's Hyundai is a case in point - the slippage from first to second on high milers is a known issue and too expensive to bother with so while it's annoying I know what it is thanks to the web and can be a bit gentler on take off.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Woodcarving works for me. Whittle away the hours so to speak.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Woodcarving works for me. Whittle away the hours so to speak.



[groan]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I have recently taken classes or am currently taking courses in: meditation, tai chi,
yoga, painting (acrylics and oils), drawing and creative writing. Planning to do more art and writing courses, or at least individual work at home.

I learned to make bead jewelry from a friend, and a few years ago, I learned cake decorating, including working with fondant, royal icing and advanced flower making. (I don't know gum paste or how to properly stack wedding cake layers.)

I was a green belt in Tae Kwon Do, and though I am *really* rusty.

I learned to knit when I was 4, have made a sweater, and I can sew and embroider.

My new work (property management) has me learning a heck of a lot on the job about repair and major renovation--particularly of large building systems, but also minor issues like appliance repair. I let professionals fix things for my tenants, but I prefer to do my own stuff around my place where I can. (I am pretty good at fixing a toilet.) 

I'm a good cook, I bake bread, make jam, and have figured out basic pastry. I don't eat meat, but know enough about the science of it to successfully cook it for other people with good results. (I stick with the stuff that's easier than it looks though.)

I used to garden (don't have a garden anymore, though I borrow one sometimes), know a fair bit about non-pesticide methods of pest control, and have played around with seed starting.

I'd like to pick up piano, or re-learn the violin, but I'm holding off for now since my life is a little too unsettled for regular practice, and there's no room for a piano around here.

Planning to get my motorcycle license next year and doing the rider safety course, and will probably want to take a course about maintaining my scooter.

I speak a smattering of French, German and Russian. (Can make myself understood in French, the other two were courses I took some time ago.)

My first degree is in computer science, and while I'm completely out of the field, my background in it was pretty strong, so at the moment I can still pick up new stuff pretty fast as needed.

Before I sold the house, I was starting to teach myself a bit about woodworking--very, very simple stuff, but I made a wooden frame for a glass tabletop, stained a shelf, and was in the middle of building a couple of padded benches. (xH took his powertools when we separated, and I really don't have space in the apartment to do much, so that is on hold for a while.)

Tossing around the idea of getting my real estate license, since that will help me out with investment side of the work I do. 

I have, and always will be learning all kinds of worthwhile things. I figure a little useless knowledge about what goes on under the hood of my car can't hurt me any.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You made me exhausted just reading that. :clap:

I suggest with your drive you'd have your sailplane licence in two weeks....about the practical minimum.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Jack of all trades, master of none.  

I have always wanted to get my pilot's license, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Do it- it is really a life goal that is worthing tackling.

YOu need to set aside a solid 2 weeks in the mid summer - that's best or three day weekends for a month.

You need 40 flights to go solo - figure about $1500 total and best it's done in a short period of time BUT not every day as you have to "sleep on it" to absorb best.

Just a wonderful treat and great people and you never ever forget how to fly.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Sonal said:


> Jack of all trades, master of none.
> 
> I have always wanted to get my pilot's license, though.



"picking up piano" can really make for big muscles...


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Back to the thread:

Some LGBT people are great parents; some are not.
Some left-handed people are great parents; some are not.
Some people from Lisbon are great parents; some are not.
Some double-jointed people are great parents; some are not.
Some people with "g" in their surnames are great parents; some are not.

I hope the pattern is clear.

The only thing I could think of that a woman might have difficulty teaching a boy would be how to shave his face. However, I had to learn on my own, and I do a decent job. I could be wrong: legs and faces could require a similar technique. I've never shaved my legs.

Role models: It has been my experience that, in the absence of a role model in the home, a person will seek one elsewhere. I'm not at all convinced that role models need to come in both genders.

Sorry to be piping in so late, and please resume the digression if the original discussion has gone stale.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Kazak said:


> The only thing I could think of that a woman might have difficulty teaching a boy would be how to shave his face.


One of the best shaves I've ever received was from a woman. So, they're covered there too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vexel said:


> One of the best shaves I've ever received was from a woman. So, they're covered there too.


i bet it wasn't your face she shaved


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Vexel said:


> One of the best shaves I've ever received was from a woman. So, they're covered there too.


Not anymore, apparently.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

SINC, some of your posts in here show just how far removed you are from reality. Might be a good time to take the old RV out and go for a tour. 

I can't find validity in any of your arguments. Women can handle firearms safely, as stated be others already. I will gladly sign you in to Colby (our shooting club) next time your in town, just make sure you don't wander down range.
There isn't much fishing here in "the city", but come on up to Parry Sound or Muskoka and you will see plenty of both men and WOMEN out on the lake, poles in hand.

Welcome to 1995.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

In his determined effort to make a caracature sexsist of himself, SINC lists, among other skills women are apparently unable to master:



SINC said:


> Gut and filet a fish.
> 
> Handle a firearm safely.
> 
> ...


And then declaims



> my point is that for every woman you can find who can do the things I listed, you will find 90% who can't....Most women consider those type of activities "men's roles", just like men consider women to be better "shoppers".


To this I have to add the obvious observation that, appart from welding and repairing machinery, none of these skills seem to be of much value to me. My wife was taught to hunt by her father, and has done pretty much all of the things described above, but she hated it, and we're now both vegetarians. I've never had any interest in any of the above, and find hunting and fishing disgusting on both ethical and aesthetic grounds.

I've never met a woman who thinks that hunting and/or fixing the combine are "men's roles" nor have I met any who would tolerate being told that "shopping" was a woman's role.

It's a good thing you're not looking for a mate in today's market, SINC, I think you'd get laughed at, slapped, and possibly beaten to a pulp by today's women.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's stereotypical attitudes like SINC's that are the reason so many girls can't do those things. Dads don't teach their little girl to change a tire. They teach their son to, and send their daughter to the kitchen to learn to bake pies.

Grow out of the sexist roles, and who knows what we can accomplish.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What kind of pies are we talking about here?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm partial to blueberry pies myself, and love a good apple pie. I just hate doing the crusts. A good pie crust is very hard to do. Takes a lot of love and patience.

A good pastry chef is worth his weight in gold.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Ahem, I'm sure you mean "worth *her or his* weight in gold."



guytoronto said:


> I'm partial to blueberry pies myself, and love a good apple pie. I just hate doing the crusts. A good pie crust is very hard to do. Takes a lot of love and patience.
> 
> A good pastry chef is worth *his* weight in gold.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Come on...we all know the best chefs in the world are guys. Girls are only good for home cooking.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Pie is home cooking. Keep the butter/shortening cold and handle the dough as little as possible.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*Verbatim, or close enough*



Sonal said:


> Pie is home cooking. Keep the butter/shortening cold and handle the dough as little as possible.


That was also the advice Tony Soprano gave recently on a show on the Food Network.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

That's not surprising--flaky pastry is all based one major principle.

The science behind a flaky pie crust is this. You want to keep the bits and pieces of cold fat sandwiched between the rest of the dough. When it goes into the oven, the fat melts, creating steam, which makes small air pockets that create the flakiness.

However, if the bits of fat melt and mix in with the flour, you get no steam, no air pockets, and no flakes. This is also why you use your hands as little as possible.

Working the dough too much also does things to the gluten in the flour which may toughen the crust as well. In a pinch, though, you can just chill the dough to solidify the fats and let the gluten relax.


----------



## Fisto (Nov 27, 2003)

Sorry to jump on this thread so late. I think this issue is all about gender as stated by some and I agree that the healthiest environment is one where a child has both a male and a female parent. That doesn't mean that another type of home family environment couldn't work I'm just saying it's the best scenario. After my parents divorced I watched my Mom try to raise my younger brothers with many challenges. So before I go on let me state that I understand there are good and bad people which can contribute to all sorts of different environments. Let's just look at a man and woman who are striving to be good parents together.

Men and women are different. Yes we are all human and equal but we each have different ways of thinking and doing things. It's these two roles that bring the best of both worlds to a child's environment. 
I think the roles are important and different and a child whether male or female needs to have the nurturing and love from both a male and a female. 
In my opinion it's like an anchor before sending them out into society. 
Boys are I think of the most concern because whether you like it or not they try to build their masculinity and will have questions and want someone who is male to look up to. More and more we're taking away organizations where they would have an opportunity to be boys and talk to male role models where females aren't present. Look at hockey or scouting. These are becoming co-ed but the girls still have their ringette, girls hockey and girl guides.
I saw a documentary about this. It showed how a lot of the problems with young boys growing and getting into gangs had a lot to do with them looking for ways to show that masculinity. In a home without a father-figure the chances of this happening are greater. 

This is more than teaching a girl how to change a tire. I think that's a great skill to learn. I'm just saying our roles are different. Call me traditionalist but that's my opinion.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's a fair opinion.

The fact remains that as long as there are single parent families, people have no right to question the ability of same-sex couples raising kids.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Fisto said:


> Sorry to jump on this thread so late. I think this issue is all about gender as stated by some and I agree that the healthiest environment is one where a child has both a male and a female parent. That doesn't mean that another type of home family environment couldn't work I'm just saying it's the best scenario. After my parents divorced I watched my Mom try to raise my younger brothers with many challenges. So before I go on let me state that I understand there are good and bad people which can contribute to all sorts of different environments. Let's just look at a man and woman who are striving to be good parents together.
> 
> Men and women are different. Yes we are all human and equal but we each have different ways of thinking and doing things. It's these two roles that bring the best of both worlds to a child's environment.
> I think the roles are important and different and a child whether male or female needs to have the nurturing and love from both a male and a female.
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Do you support the cycle of sexism?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Fisto said:


> Men and women are different.


And a damn good thing! But it's even more important to recognize that _individuals_ are different, and the differences between individuals is greater than the differences between the populations. So, for example, it's perfectly true that men are bigger and stronger than women _as a population_, but there are plenty of small weak men, and big strong women. So it's a mistake to assume that the characteristics that are generally true of the population will be specifically true of the individuals.



> Yes we are all human and equal but we each have different ways of thinking and doing things.


Yes, but these different ways of doing things may appeal to different individuals who may not be the gender typically though of as fitting that idiom.



> a lot of the problems with young boys growing and getting into gangs had a lot to do with them looking for ways to show that masculinity. In a home without a father-figure the chances of this happening are greater.


If that's true, then it should also be a problem in a home with a father that isn't very masculine. Maybe it is, but I don't see it.

I think you're onto something here, but the solution isn't sexual segregation. The solution is to allow kids to develop their 'masculinity' regardless of their gender. Healthy agression, competitiveness, confidence, enthusiasm for sports etc. should be just as acceptable and even desireable in young girls as they are in young boys, even if, because of our differing biology, they're much more common in boys. Similarly, sensitivity, subtle social skills, artistic talent, and nurturing should be praised in boys as much as they are in girls.

We've spend millenia confining people to specific roles because of their genders, and it hasn't caused the extinction of our species or even significant social disruption. But it has caused a lot of individuals a lot of suffering. The past several decades has seen a sigificant change in the way girls and women are treated (except in SINC's world), but the necessary complementary change in the way boys and men are treated hasn't really happened yet. I think it is happening, and will continue to happen over the next few decades. But until then, it's a little tougher to raise boys than it used to be. I think that's a small price to pay for a world in which women are free to be who they really are.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Do you support the cycle of sexism?


Of course he does. It's part of the the fantasy universe he inhabits: Daddy goes to work, mommy keeps house, little johny plays toy soldiers, while little Jane plays with her doll-house, we all go to church on Sunday, and we're all one big happy mysogenistic family!


Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Of course he does. It's part of the the fantasy universe he inhabits: Daddy goes to work, mommy keeps house, little johny plays toy soldiers, while little Jane plays with her doll-house, we all go to church on Sunday, and we're all one big happy mysogenistic family!
> 
> 
> Cheers


LOL!!!

Take your meds Bryan, your inner Christaphobe is rearing his hateful head again.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Take your meds Bryan, your inner Christaphobe is rearing his hateful head again.


'Christaphobe'... this is new to me, but I like it. I think anyone who knows anything about the history of western civilization, or the problems facing the world today, has good reason to be a Christaphobe. Christianity, or more specifically, the irrational behaviour of too many of it's adherents, is certainly among my greatest fears. 

Strangely, these dangerous behaviours aren't exhibited universally among self-proclaimed adherents. I wonder why? Perhaps it's not Christianity that's the problem, but the irrational folks who use it as a defence of their otherwise indefensible behaviour that is the real problem? Whadayathink?

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Bingo.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> 'Christaphobe'... this is new to me, but I like it. I think anyone who knows anything about the history of western civilization, or the problems facing the world today, has good reason to be a Christaphobe. Christianity, or more specifically, the irrational behaviour of too many of it's adherents, is certainly among my greatest fears.
> 
> Strangely, these dangerous behaviours aren't exhibited universally among self-proclaimed adherents. I wonder why? Perhaps it's not Christianity that's the problem, but the irrational folks who use it as a defence of their otherwise indefensible behaviour that is the real problem? Whadayathink?
> 
> Cheers


Bryan
I thought all adherents to a "sky daddy" were irrational in your eyes? Maybe the meds are helping.
Also its good to see you admit your phobia, its the first step to healing.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

the argument against gay parents or gay adoptive parents that always gets me is the implication that theses parents are raising the child to be either gay as well, or as a sexual toy for themselves. This was shown quite bluntly on the TV show Wife Swap or maybe Changing Spouses, where they put a fundamentalist Christian Mom into the role of one of the moms in a lesbian parented family. She came right out and accused the one mother of raising the daughter to be a sexual toy for the two adults! Methinks the sickness she worries about is inher own head. 
IF this theory were true, then where do the gay people come from, since they, until recently at least, were all raised by hetero parents? And I guess there are no hetero adults that sexually abuse children either? These people (like the woman described above) are twits. The most important things a child needs are: to know that they are loved unconditionally, to be kept safe, to be educated, and to be assisted in making their own way in the world. This needs to be done by all parties responsible for the child, gender and gender combinations are not relevant to these goals.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

rondini said:


> the argument against gay parents or gay adoptive parents that always gets me is the implication that theses parents are raising the child to be either gay as well, or as a sexual toy for themselves.


Actually a new study shows Gay parents do produce gay kids.



> In one of the original studies, 25 percent of adults raised by lesbians (six of 25) reported having a homoerotic relationship, as compared to none of those (out of 20 surveyed) with heterosexual parents. In another study, 64 percent of the adults with lesbian parents (14 of 22) reported that they would consider having a same-sex relationship, as opposed to just 17 percent of those with heterosexual parents (three of 18).


http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/01743257.htm

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I wonder if you've seen the new study which shows that people play fast and loose with the results of studies? It's all the rage.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually a new study shows Gay parents do produce gay kids.


Thank you Mac **cough** bigot ** cough ** agenda ** Guiver.

Let's quote the article:



> It’s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended.


So, no, gay parents don't produce gay children. They just produce children who aren't constrained by stereotypical sexual identities.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually a new study shows Gay parents do produce gay kids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously you can't read so I will quote some parts of your article for you but first I say this: Who cares if Lesbians are slightly more likely to have gay children? Why does this matter unless you are a homophobic bigot?

Now onto the quotes:


MacGuiver's link said:


> It’s true that the people raised by lesbian parents were not more likely to be gay in the sense of identifying themselves as homosexuals in adulthood. That was the question the original studies asked. But their sexual identities do seem more open-ended.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Ironically, however, it seems riskier to stress what should seem like the best news: that, as Stacey says, "the study shows the real benefits of being raised in a gay family."


What a dishonest way to present this article MacGuiver.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Thank you Mac **cough** bigot ** cough ** agenda ** Guiver.
> 
> Let's quote the article:
> 
> ...


Beat me to it didn't you?
:lmao: :clap:

Unfortunately for me I have dyslexia and it takes me a lot more time to read and write than most people. When I started readin MacGuiver's link no one had replied yet!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Thank you Mac **cough** bigot ** cough ** agenda ** Guiver.
> 
> Let's quote the article:
> 
> ...


So they just help release the inner homosexual in us all. Got it.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wow, are you ever ignorant.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

*"Not that there's anything wrong with that..."*

I think this thread pays tremendous testament to the range of the range of human behaviour, opinion and preferences.

Oddly though, unless I've missed something, there don't appear to be opinions from people who self-identify as gay.

Now I'm not trying to "out" anyone or insisting that anyone who hasn't spoken up come forward. This is strictly none of our business and more specifically none of mine.

But even on HowardForums, a forum full of young boy cell phone geeks, there are people who are openly gay. Their presence has actually helped the forum come a long way forward in its fair treatment of people for all those human rights reasons, as in, there should be no discrimination based on sex, gender, etc.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> So they just help release the inner homosexual in us all. Got it.


What a filthy load! The article CLEARLY states that there is NO INCREASE in the number of gay offspring only in the number of people who admit to having had or being willing to consider having a same sex relationship. 
I suppose you think that everyone who has ever experimented with a same sex experience is gay kind of like anyone who has a great great grand parent who is black is also black?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I think this thread pays tremendous testament to the range of the range of human behaviour, opinion and preferences.
> 
> Oddly though, unless I've missed something, there don't appear to be opinions from people who self-identify as gay.


I thought this strange as well.
Maybe gay folk don't like Macs? j/k
There must be some gay / lesbian / trans gender people lurking around here no?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> There must be some gay / lesbian / trans gender people lurking around here no?


An "out" yourself sticky thread? Er, that sounded strange.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> What a filthy load! The article CLEARLY states that there is NO INCREASE in the number of gay offspring only in the number of people who admit to having had or being willing to consider having a same sex relationship.
> I suppose you think that everyone who has ever experimented with a same sex experience is gay kind of like anyone who has a great great grand parent who is black is also black?


I think homosexuality has a genetic component to it and I recall that recent studies have proven this out.

You don't need a biology degree to understand the implication of this (i.e. homosexual parents = higher % of homosexual children).


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I think homosexuality has a genetic component to it and I recall that recent studies have proven this out.
> 
> You don't need a biology degree to understand the implication of this (i.e. homosexual parents = higher % of homosexual children).


Great so show me the proof!
Oh wait you don't have any do you?
I thought so.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Great so show me the proof!
> Oh wait you don't have any do you?
> I thought so.


You got four choices:

- Completely a choice;
- Completely genetic;
- Completely environmental (e.g. testosterone in the womb); or,
- A mix of the above.

From what I have read, homosexuality is a mix of the first three choices. I won't bother googling it for you. Read about it yourself.

Based on homosexuality having some level of genetic component, reproduction of homosexuals means it is more likely to get passed on. Do you have some other theory on reproduction that science has yet to learn?


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

*"balls!"*



Max said:


> I wonder if you've seen the new study which shows that people play fast and loose with the results of studies? It's all the rage.


said the Queen, "if I had them I'd be King!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Who cares - it's like arguing about left handedness....yes it can be supressed and was very often.

SS attraction is part of the human sexual spectrum and for most mammals as well so why the hell should it matter.
Musical parents produce more musical offspring........the snark about more gay children is a horrid comment...as if somehow having a gay child is a "evil" thing to be deplored. 



> They just produce children who aren't constrained by stereotypical sexual identities.


 :clap:

THAT is a given.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Who cares - it's like arguing about left handedness....yes it can be supressed and was very often.


I think a lot of gay people care. Once it is shown that being gay isn't a choice, but is something that is natural, all the religious people will have to STFU.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually a new study shows Gay parents do produce gay kids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are quite possibly the largest bigot on these boards, and perhaps Ontario. Proposing that gay/lesbian parents raise gay/lesbian children is preposterous (Studies have shown that this is not a preference, but rather genetic..see bottom of post for link). On top of that ridiculous claim, you also insinuate that being gay or lesbian is a bad thing. Every person is entitled to be attracted to whomever they want, regardless of creed, race, religion, gender or any other factors I may have left out.

I have absolutely no tolerance for intolerant, bigoted fools such as yourself.


A quick Google gives me this, though I know of other studies and have seen articles on them:
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=582&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all

From the world-renowned Science magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5414/571
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ay&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

John Clay said:


> You are quite possibly the largest bigot on these boards, and perhaps Ontario. Proposing that gay/lesbian parents raise gay/lesbian children is preposterous (Studies have shown that this is not a preference, but rather genetic..see bottom of post for link). On top of that ridiculous claim, you also insinuate that being gay or lesbian is a bad thing. Every person is entitled to be attracted to whomever they want, regardless of creed, race, religion, gender or any other factors I may have left out.
> 
> I have absolutely no tolerance for intolerant, bigoted fools such as yourself.
> 
> ...


John I know your angry but take a deep clensing breath and think about what your saying. You made the point that you were angry that people would think gay children will come of gay marriages. I simply pointed you to a recent study (from a pro homosexual source as well) that seemed to indicate otherwise and you have me up there with Hitler and Archie Bunker. Geez talk about over reacting.:yikes: Though your not alone with the wild imagination and creative vilification. If I've said anything hateful about gay people point it out. If not, why the hateful comments? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> You are quite possibly the largest bigot on these boards, and perhaps Ontario. Proposing that gay/lesbian parents raise gay/lesbian children is preposterous (Studies have shown that this is not a preference, but rather genetic..see bottom of post for link). On top of that ridiculous claim, you also insinuate that being gay or lesbian is a bad thing. Every person is entitled to be attracted to whomever they want, regardless of creed, race, religion, gender or any other factors I may have left out.
> 
> I have absolutely no tolerance for intolerant, bigoted fools such as yourself.
> 
> ...


I'd say that was a personal attack. Yikes! A withdrawal is in order. Or something else.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> I'd say that was a personal attack.


How?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I'd say that was a personal attack. Yikes! A withdrawal is in order. Or something else.


Yes, nothing worse than somebody mistaking you as coming from Ontario.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It could be worse. You could actually be from Toronto. Imagine, if you will, the stigma.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well regardless, everyone should step back and take a deep breath. This is getting a bit silly, innit? If we can't talk peaceably the country's screwed and deserves to go down into a tailspin. Since I don't believe anyone here seriously wants that, I would rather see people take a time-out to regroup.

Or, as one wag said in another forum I frequent, _it's only a chat room._


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Yes, nothing worse than somebody mistaking you as coming from Ontario.


Now that's funny.

Thumbs up on the old guy humour. :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> I'd say that was a personal attack. Yikes! A withdrawal is in order. Or something else.





Vexel said:


> How?





John Clay said:


> *You* are quite possibly the largest bigot on these boards, and perhaps Ontario. Proposing that gay/lesbian parents raise gay/lesbian children is preposterous (Studies have shown that this is not a preference, but rather genetic..see bottom of post for link). On top of that ridiculous claim, *you* also insinuate that being gay or lesbian is a bad thing. Every person is entitled to be attracted to whomever they want, regardless of creed, race, religion, gender or any other factors I may have left out.
> 
> I have absolutely no tolerance for intolerant, bigoted fools such as *yourself.*


Seems to me the word *You/yourself* makes it mighty personal. What part of *You/yourself* are you having difficulty understanding?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Who would have thought this thread would go nuts? 

If it is about "studies" then post them and discuss them; dismiss them and champion them; ignore them and promote them; even argue their methodology and implications or just go after the sources for fun. 

If it is simply about being angry that anything but previously approved conclusions and interpretations are posted, then there are many fora out there that cater to people who don't like to be challenged in their beliefs.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Based on homosexuality having some level of genetic component, reproduction of homosexuals means it is more likely to get passed on. Do you have some other theory on reproduction that science has yet to learn?


Your understanding of genetics is lacking to say the least. 
You think genetics work like this:
Gay Dad + Gay Mom = Gay Child

But genetics rarely are so convenient. Notice: All the studies show that children raised by lesbians ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY this includes the one MacGuiver posted. So it is clear that if there is a genetic component to being gay (something no where near universally accepted) it is not necessarily a hereditary or at least a directly hereditary component. (Another possibility is that sexual preference is soley carried by the father's genes. I don't believe this for a second but if true has all sorts of implications for bigots.)

There are many examples of this kind of thing. The easiest place to find this sort of information is in the study of disease. This disease is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.alsa.org/als/genetics.cfm?CFID=3165660&CFTOKEN=86825426


> ALS is directly hereditary in only in a small percentage of families. The majority of patients with adult-onset ALS (90%) have no family history of ALS, and present as an isolated case. This is called sporadic ALS (SALS), and although there is likely a genetic predisposition involved, SALS is not directly inherited in a family.


There are myriad other genetic conditions and diseases that are not directly hereditary in fact most genetic conditions are not.

I wish genetics worked the way you and (it seems) most people want them to but they just don't. If they did curing and preventing genetic disease would be a snap.


I think a lot of money could be better spent looking for genetic causes of bigotry and prejudice.


----------



## Jeremy Banks (Nov 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Gut and filet a fish.
> 
> Handle a firearm safely.
> 
> ...





SINC said:


> Cast a fishing line.
> 
> Shoot a hockey puck.
> 
> ...


Dude, you're pathetic. :clap:

I can't do well or at all prettymuch everything on that list, which is the same with most people who live in urban areas. Are you saying they'd all be bad fathers?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Jeremy Banks said:


> Dude, you're pathetic. :clap:
> 
> I can't do well or at all prettymuch everything on that list, which is the same with most people who live in urban areas. Are you saying they'd all be bad fathers?


I ain't a dude, _dude._ 

And no, just some of 'em.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Your understanding of genetics is lacking to say the least.
> You think genetics work like this:
> Gay Dad + Gay Mom = Gay Child


And your grasp of the English language is equally lacking. I never said a gay dad and gay mom produce gay child. Of course it is more complex than that.

All I said is that it was more likely. More likely just means a measurable statistical difference. I might only be 1% or 5% more likely, but the point I was trying to make was... MORE LIKELY...

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060224_gay_genes.html


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> I ain't a dude, _dude._
> 
> And no, just some of 'em.


Now that I didn't know. Ms SINC ?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> Gay Cure Therapy
> 
> :yikes:



That's just scary.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> And your grasp of the English language is equally lacking. I never said a gay dad and gay mom produce gay child. Of course it is more complex than that.
> 
> All I said is that it was more likely. More likely just means a measurable statistical difference. I might only be 1% or 5% more likely, but the point I was trying to make was... MORE LIKELY...
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060224_gay_genes.html


Interesting reading. The point you are still missing is as this article doesn't tell whether these mothers are lesbians. I would assume not. Why? 

BECAUSE EVERY STUDY DONE INCLUDING THE ONE MACGUIVER POSTED SAYS THE SAME THING!!!
CHILDREN OF LESBIANS HAVE NO GREATER A RATE OF BEING GAY!!!

The article make no assertion that these same factors are involved in lesbianism. So gay parents = greater percent chance of gay children doesn't likely follow. 

I'll wait for more research before I buy this "gay gene" theory. I'm not saying it's not true but I am also not saying it is. I'm sure we'll see many more studies about this.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

double post


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> Seems to me the word *You/yourself* makes it mighty personal. What part of *You/yourself* are you having difficulty understanding?


SINC. I understand that the post was directed at MacGuiver. But... I don't see the post as a personal attack. 

[RANT]

If that was the case, you'd be banned for attacking every female and homosexual member of this board. So, if you require a retraction/apology from John Clay, I'd say you'd better get out the Santa list and change the title.

It amazes me at how blind humans can be.

Homosexual people can be great parents. I know a quite a few who do a wonderful job at raising their children. Someday.. certain people will realize that it's not how well a person can "Throw a ball" or "Fix a car." It's the love and caring and discipline instilled upon them from birth.

I used to live with a lesbian couple for a number of years.

They decided to get a puppy.. you know what.. that puppy didn't come out any different than any other puppy I know. His name was Benny, he would come if you called him. He'd play fetch, he'd sit pretty, he'd come to get you if he had to go outside to pee.

All in all, he's a loved puppy.. and will be loved and happy until he passes away.

You see.. it's not "who" the teacher is.. it's "what" they teach.

[/RANT]

Just think about what you might be saying in the future.. and think long and hard about how what your saying might offend a LOT of people on this board. Please. Thanks.

PS: I'm not gay.. but I have many very nice and wonderful friends who are.. so, you see.. since I care about them.. it hit me a little personal too. thanks.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Bryan
> I thought all adherents to a "sky daddy" were irrational in your eyes? Maybe the meds are helping.
> Also its good to see you admit your phobia, its the first step to healing.


Sorry to be slow replying... real life intervened.

Yes, all believers in sky-daddies, magic space pixies, flying spaghetti monsters, and other supernatural phenomena are irrational, but they're not all dangerous. Most, if not all of us have some irrational beliefs. It's the dangerous behavior those beliefs motivate that I'm concerned about.

The Abrahamic religions teach some very dangerous nonsense: that death is not the end of existence, for example. This allows believers to engage in violent suicide attacks on those they perceive as infidels. Or that the Earth was created especially for us, which is at the root of our woeful treatment of the planet and exploitive attitude towards its resources. Or simply that we're somehow a special, favored creation. 

Humans aren't special... we're just well-adapted to our planet... but if we ruin it, we're not likely to be able to find another one that suits us nearly so well.

Somehow, some adherents to Christianity and other Abrahamic religions manage to behave sensibly, despite their delusions, so I don't have any problem with them. But unfortunately large and politically powerful groups of them are a serious threat to our civilization and even life as we know it (*cough* George Bush *cough*). 

Many of my best friends are Christians, and I know several Muslims, one Hindu and a few Buddhists. These folks are great people. Deluded and irrational to be sure, but great people nonetheless. 

However, if the number of people out there who are willing to blow themselves up in the name of their magical sky-daddy doesn't frighten you, you haven't been paying attention.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Yes, all believers in sky-daddies, magic space pixies, flying spaghetti monsters, and other supernatural phenomena are irrational, but they're not all dangerous.


Actually, they are.

Religious belief is the end of thought, not the beginning. Religious belief is the acceptance of the unknown with no pursuit of answers.

Think of all the diseases that where once thought to be "the will of God". People with epilepsy where considered to be "possessed". Without rational minded people seeking the answers, people would still be dying today from the simplest diseases.

And it still happens today. Extreme Christian movements in the US proudly proclaim "AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality". How many of those people will put on a lab coat and try to find a cure? How many will donate to help find a cure? Not one.

Kids who get bounced from foster home to foster home never develop as well as kids with parents (or a single parent). A constant role model in a kid's life gives kids a better chance. But some people, due to personal or religious beliefs (read: not facts), would try to block good people from adopting kids, all based on sexual orientation. And that is dangerous.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Actually, they are.
> 
> Religious belief is the end of thought, not the beginning. Religious belief is the acceptance of the unknown with no pursuit of answers.


Philosophically, I agree, however, in practise, there are clearly individuals who are capable scientists who are also theists. I've worked with a few of these people, and have asked them how they do this. From what I can glean from these conversations, these people are able to compartmentalize their conceptual framework, such that they do not apply their beliefs in the supernatural to their emperical research, and do not apply their scientific skepticsim to their faith.

Seems quite bizzare to me, but it is apparently possible for some people.

In my experience, these people are the exception to the rule, and the majority of theists do not have this ability. And without such an ability, I agree that these belief systems are quite dangerous, as they do motivate damaging behavior.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I wonder if Martman would call this guy a Bigot since he likes to throw the term around.

"Gay designer STEFANO GABBANA is against the idea of same sex couples becoming parents, because he believes children need both a mother and a father."

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/gabbana against single sex parents_1017292

I don't agree with Gabbana (nor do I wear his clothes), but I do think a child needs both male and female role models in their upbringing.

The point I am trying to make is that people shouldn't judge somebody as a bigot because their opinion is different.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I see your point. Me, I hope for the day we don't feel the need to insert "gay" before "designer" (or carpenter or labourer or investment banker)... I agree about strong role models of each gender for raising kids, although I believe such mentors can exist outside of, yet very close to, your classic nuclear family unit (another funny term... do nuclear families live in fallout shelters?).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "Gay designer STEFANO GABBANA is against the idea of same sex couples becoming parents, because he believes children need both a mother and a father."


That's actually a good example in my view.

_ he believes children need both a mother and a father."_
That' an opinion and he has every right to it

_ he believes children need both a mother and a father and the government should prevent gays from adopting"_
That's advocating a reduction of the rights others purely on the basis of sexual orientation.
In my mind that prejudicial verging on bigotry and in poor taste at best.


_ he believes children need both a mother and a father and gays should be horsewhipped for even thinking about adopting...bloody perverts"_
That's hate mongering and might or should earn a criminal charge.

I suspect the first and last are easy to determine.

It's the middle ground and I would simply use anyone advocating a diminishing of civil rights of a group based solely on..........fill in the blank.

For me it's the calling for a reduction of rights of another person or group that is the key factor.

Men drivers are terrible. Opinion
Men drivers are terrible and should not be licenced. Prejudicial

Bigotry I perceive as simply a stronger more pejorative term when the prejudice is held obstinately in the face of laws and common courtesy.

My opinion 

••

Max I'd like to see that in a much wider sense.
Ie it being unnecessary to put woman, or black or gay etc in front of judge, doctor, teacher MPP etc.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Of course, MacDoc. Sexual orientation, colour, etc. However, we may be a long time waiting.

And yet, part of me suspects that humanity, the collective, cherishes the differences among its specific parts. Keeps things interesting. Keeps the gene pool rich. Makes us redefine what is beautiful. Keeps us on our toes about culture and what is normal, acceptable, civil, just. And because I think that all of the above is cool, I guess I have to take with that the inverse stuff - the prejudice, the ignorance, the fear. I'm guessing that too is part of our heritage.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I wonder if Martman would call this guy a Bigot since he likes to throw the term around.
> 
> "Gay designer STEFANO GABBANA is against the idea of same sex couples becoming parents, because he believes children need both a mother and a father."


Just because someone is gay does not necessarily mean they are not homophobic. In fact many of the worst homophobes are closeted gays. I find this issue tired. Single mothers have been around as long as men have been running from their responsibility. I think that anyone who tries to limit another's rights to parenthood because of issues of sexual preference are bigots.The fact is that most same sex couples are NOT separatists. Children will get role models of both sexes from all sorts of places (church, school, clubs, scouting, friends etc.). I will add that all the opinions in this thread except one have been from people who have no experience being in a same sex family so the arguments are uninformed at best. One of my best friends in high school's parents were lesbians and she turned out just fine. She lives with a guy in the Yukon now. Personally I too have some experience in this matter as my mother has only lived with women since divorcing my dad when I was 8. The ignorance I've seen surrounding this issue in this thread is hurtful. The bigotry against gays is the biggest problem that same sex couples and their children face. Those who would impose their moral standards should not be rewarded for the hardships they impose on other people. You want to know why I so freely toss around the term bigot? Because I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the hatred and ignorance spewed by people who think it is their business who my mother sees. It isn't!
Get it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Just because someone is gay does not necessarily mean they are not homophobic. In fact many of the worst homophobes are closeted gays.


Oh.

Well.

That certainly straightens it out for me.

Or does it?

Hell, I don't understand anything about gays anymore after that statement.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Oh.
> 
> Well.
> 
> ...


Self loathing people are always very troubled and often troubling to others who share the trait being loathed. There are as many flavours of self loathing as there are of regular bigotry (ie. loathing of others). Self loathing usually comes from resentment of the stigma of being some type of minority and blaming the stigma on the "problem" with oneself rather than placing the anger where it belongs (on those who are stigmatizing you). Now if you have a problem admitting your stigma (ie. a closeted homosexual) the problem is exasperated especially if it is as fundamental as an issue but easy to hide like sexual preference. You can pretend to be straight but you can't really pretend to be white. This hiding creates even more resentment and self loathing.
This is a fairly common reaction to long term exposure to bigotry.


edit: This is of course an over simplistic explanation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Self loathing people are always very troubled and often troubling to others who share the trait being loathed. There are as many flavours of self loathing as there are of regular bigotry (ie. loathing of others). Self loathing usually comes from resentment of the stigma of being some type of minority and blaming the stigma on the "problem" with oneself rather than placing the anger where it belongs (on those who are stigmatizing you). Now if you have a problem admitting your stigma (ie. a closeted homosexual) the problem is exasperated especially if it is as fundamental as an issue but easy to hide like sexual preference. You can pretend to be straight but you can't really pretend to be white. This hiding creates even more resentment and self loathing.
> This is a fairly common reaction to long term exposure to bigotry.
> 
> 
> edit: This is of course an over simplistic explanation.


All very true... but Gabbana is openly gay.... so bad explanation....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> All very true... but Gabbana is openly gay.... so bad explanation....


But that quote was to explain to SINC why some people are self loathing and as I pointed out it was a simplistic explanation at that. But I did say this above:


martman said:


> Single mothers have been around as long as men have been running from their responsibility. I think that anyone who tries to limit another's rights to parenthood because of issues of sexual preference are bigots.The fact is that most same sex couples are NOT separatists. Children will get role models of both sexes from all sorts of places (church, school, clubs, scouting, friends etc.).


Which I think answers to Gabbana.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As an aside, the ads at the top of the forum page I'm being targeted with are for a gay fertility clinic in California, and a gay cruise ship.:lmao: 
Bad targeting I'd have to say! I'm not gay and I am not looking to have children. How does this targeting work? Is Google compiling what we write here to target ads to us?


edit: strange now the ads are about Macs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> As an aside, the ads at the top of the forum page I'm being targeted with are for a gay fertility clinic in California, and a gay cruise ship.:lmao:
> Bad targeting I'd have to say! I'm not gay and I am not looking to have children. How does this targeting work? Is Google compiling what we write here to target ads to us?
> 
> 
> edit: strange now the ads are about Macs.


Yes, that's what Google does.

I wonder what will happen if I...... porn porn xxx porn xxx porn sex xxx porn porn xxxx porn hot xxx


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> But I did say this above:
> Which I think answers to Gabbana.


That's all fine, but my point was I felt you unfairly judged others as being Bigots. I don't feel that disagreeing with same sex parents is necessarily a Bigoted stance. Yes, many Bigots will believe that, but not all people who believe it are Bigots.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I don't see how you can advocate discriminating against gays and not be a bigot. Please explain.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> That's all fine, but my point was I felt you unfairly judged others as being Bigots. I don't feel that disagreeing with same sex parents is necessarily a Bigoted stance. Yes, many Bigots will believe that, but not all people who believe it are Bigots.


Here's the thing. You have no actual evidence that same-sex parents would be any worse that your typical male/female parents. You are not basing your decision on facts. You are basing your decision on "a feeling".

So does this make you a bigot?

Would you be a bigot if you felt black people are less intelligent, and feel they shouldn't have important jobs?

Would you be a bigot if you felt Asian people are terrible drivers, and feel they shouldn't be behind the wheel of transit buses?

Would you be a bigot if you felt Jews are cheapskates, and feel they can't be trusted in business dealings?

These are all terrible stereotypes, and yes, you would be a bigot if you believed any of this.

So, would you be a bigot if you felt homosexuals are terrible parents, and feel they shouldn't raise children?

Yes. Yes, you would be a bigot for feeling that way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The biggest bigots here are the bigots who because they think others are bigots, are bigots themselves.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> The biggest bigots here are the bigots who because they think others are bigots, are bigots themselves.


What if the people who are called bigots are either a) bigoted and don't realize or recognize it; or are b) bigoted and refuse to acknowledge it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> What if the people who are called bigots are either a) bigoted and don't realize or recognize it; or are b) bigoted and refuse to acknowledge it?


You would have to ask a bigot to get an answer to that question.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You would have to ask a bigot to get an answer to that question.


I think he just did... 


SLAM! :clap:

BTW... I am perfectly happy if people refer to me as being bigoted towards bigots or intolerant of those who are themselves intolerant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And you are a bigot yourself for making that false statement.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC,

The first step is admitting you have a problem. I'm sure we can arrange a group hug.

We'll help you give up your guns, accept homosexuals, and cast away your hatred.

Come on in to hug habour.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> SINC,
> 
> The first step is admitting you have a problem. I'm sure we can arrange a group hug.
> 
> ...


You are disgusting and very wrong.

For the record:

I do not own any guns.

I have no issues with homosexuals.

I don't hate anyone or any group. (Although I am getting close to it in your case.)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> You are disgusting and very wrong.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't hate anyone or any group. (Although I am getting close to it in your case.)


Don't let him rattle you SINC, you've shown us all where you're buttons are, and guytoronto is just having fun pushing them.

Cheers


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Here's the thing. You have no actual evidence that same-sex parents would be any worse that your typical male/female parents. You are not basing your decision on facts. You are basing your decision on "a feeling".


I don't think you understand my position.

I am all for SS marriage and SS parents. 

But... and the only but... is that I think it is important for children to be exposed to both male and female role models. 

Is that based on feeling? Of course it is. It's pretty hard to apply statistics to something as subjective and sociological as this. It might not even be possible due to the rate of change in social progress (i.e. SS marriage and SS parents were unthinkable 20 years ago).

The second part of your post is a little more controversial. Does believing a stereotype make a person a bigot? I am not sure that we actually have control of this part of our brain. We judge people without even thinking about it. MacDoc has posted studies on this before. The people who try hardest not to be 'bigots' ironically test out to be more bigoted. It's human nature to pre-judge people based on their appearance, colour, sex, age, etc...
By your definition, we are all bigots. I think that if we want to move forward as humans, we first must understand our true instincts. 

You appear to believe that thoughts of difference between races in a bigoted concept. Reality will have the final say on that. As somebody with a scientific background, I am open to the idea that there are racial differences for such things as intelligence.  We might not like the concept of differences because it seems to clash with our concept of equality. It might be wise to avoid such studies for a long time because we don't have the maturity to have a discussion on these matters, nor are most people capable of understanding such a study. Unfortunately, the 'I am better than you complex' clouds the whole issue. 

As an example, there are populatons of humans, such as Ashkenazi Jews, that have higher intelligence than the norm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> As an example, there are populatons of humans, such as Ashkenazi Jews, that have higher intelligence than the norm.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence


You didn't seem to read this very well so I'll quote from the discution page on this article.


> Recommned the deletion of this page, for a multitude of reasons: 1. The data relied upon is not valid due to small, non-representative sample sizes. The most valid and representative testing so far has shown that Jews have approximately 107 IQ, using a study that tested around 1,300 disporic Jews. (all other proceeding this study had less than a hundred)
> 
> 2. Ashkenazi is a nebulous category. It's a mixture of religious and ethnic aspects.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashkenazi_intelligence#November_2006

It seems this information is not well founded.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> It seems this information is not well founded.


Because you 'feel' that way, or because you actually read the studies?

There are different views on these studies, just like climate change. But over time, one side is going to win out. We aren't at that point yet. All I am saying is that there is a POTENTIAL for races to have different attributes that are genetically inhereted. Believing such studies does not a bigot make.

I tend to believe there are pockets of people with high intelligence (small populations). I have more scepticism about intelligence differences when comparing entire races (large populations). 

A personal anecdote... My grandma came to Canada from Holland and settled in an area with a high population of Dutch people. The smartest people in the community were all from an isolated island off the coast. They were all socially ackward, but had very high intelligence. My grandma figured it had something to do with the genetic isolation. 

Intelligence has a large genetic component (fact). Genetics are inhereted (fact). Intelligent parents statistically produce more intelligent children (fact). Why is it so hard to believe that some populations are more intelligent than the norm?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> As somebody with a scientific background, I am open to the idea that there are racial differences for such things as intelligence.  We might not like the concept of differences because it seems to clash with our concept of equality


The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


Your statments that it takes one male and one female influence to properly raise children is showing of your bigotry and bias - maybe you should look at the social factors that make you think that way...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vandave that's a poor example as intelligence itself is nebulous.

White skin burns more = inferior 
Let's ban white lifeguards

••

In my mind the line in the sand for bigotry is calling for or inciting a dimishment of the rights of another based solely on say being left handed.

You might think lefties are not good hitters. That's an opinon
If you say lefties should be banned from baseball - that's bigotry for me.

You can use the same standard across the board in almost any situation.
Only the level or perjoratives and rhetoric changes.

That's part of the problem - bigotry "hides" behind polite language. Just ask any English person about the subtle barbs of class bigotry there.

Opinions are one thing.
Call to action or acting another when it comes to limiting the rights of another person.
••

This is where affirmative action programs have to tread a very fine line as in trying to correct past problems the programs create a new set.

Churches trying to opt out of hiring rules is one that makes my blood boil. 


ªªª

BTW the very idea of "race" as a useful scientific concept is very far from firm.
Only in limited circumstances ie Inuit for certain dietary issues or genetic subsets ( Finns with heart attacks ) is any distinction like that useful.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I am open to the idea that there are racial differences for such things as intelligence


IF you had used the phrase genetic subgroup differences as you did later it might have passed. Just using the term "racial" says - you may think you're scientist but you are not.

I think the prevailing term is ...... group-phenotype variation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
> Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


AS, I said I was OPEN to the idea. Don't assign interpretation to me. Of course correlation is not causation. I have said it a million times.



ArtistSeries said:


> Your statments that it takes one male and one female influence to properly raise children is showing of your bigotry and bias - maybe you should look at the social factors that make you think that way...


Does being raised by a single mom count?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> IF you had used the phrase genetic subgroup differences as you did later it might have passed. Just using the term "racial" says - you may think you're scientist but you are not.
> 
> I think the prevailing term is ...... group-phenotype variation.


Ummmm..... I am not trying to have an academic debate on the subject so I am not too concerned about being scientifically correct on what I say.

You are missing my point which is that belief in 'group-phenotype variation', does not a bigot make. 

I am not interested in a scientific debate on this subject because the vast majority of people are incapable of separating their political beliefs from scientific interpretation. It's not an easy thing to do. I actually think you are somebody who is able to separate the two. I am not an expert on the subject, but I have taken course in biology and anthropology and take a casual interest when opportunity presents. I do think that I have an informed opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Reality will have the final say on that. As somebody with a *scientific background*, I am open to the idea that there are *racial differences for such things as intelligence*.


If you want to portray yourself as "scientific background" then I suggest a bit less casual phrasing.
The highlighted are just about diametrically opposed.

If you are studying anthropolgy then you should be even more congnizant of casual language.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If you want to portray yourself as "scientific background" then I suggest a bit less casual phrasing.
> The highlighted are just about diametrically opposed.
> 
> If you are studying anthropolgy then you should be even more congnizant of casual language.


Thanks professor squirrel.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You made the statement. As with all language use there sometimes unexpected consequences.

That you even made the "race/intelligence" connection in the casual way you did speaks volumes.
So does the squirrel diversion.
Uncomfortable??....change the topic. ....how very right wing of you. Genetics I guess.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Uncomfortable??....change the topic. ....how very right wing of you. Genetics I guess.


With that line of reasoning, you're quite right-wing yourself. Or Correct by Divine Law. Either way.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So Beej, are you defending stupidity on the part of VD?
VD opened this up, it may have been awkward to use "science" but the inference was there...

He has cleared up his position somewhat.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So Beej, are you defending stupidity on the part of VD?
> VD opened this up, it may have been awkward to use "science" but the inference was there...
> 
> He has cleared up his position somewhat.


"it may have been awkward to use "science" but the inference was there..."

If you call that stupidity, then I'm (un) surprised that you don't point that out for others. Continue playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack because, I will admit, you're very good at that act. But you do get it (and add the hackery for our entertainment, I guess):

"He has cleared up his position somewhat": exactly, so this,

"You made the statement. As with all language use there sometimes unexpected consequences." was a consequence, but then the weak insinuations followed:

...................
That you even made the "race/intelligence" connection in the casual way you did speaks volumes.
So does the squirrel diversion.
Uncomfortable??....change the topic. ....how very right wing of you. Genetics I guess.
...................


Which could have done well with some smilies but, without is, er, "notable".

See? So should I fabricate some straw-man question for you to answer? That approach, by the way, was well established by Fox and their "So you support *insert "bad" thing" approach to dissent. Like I said, your act is good, and I thank you for the laughs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, here are my comment to VD:
The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


*Now, go and show me where your so-called "playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack " is in there? *


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> *Now, go and show me where your so-called "playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack " is in there? *


Recall:
"AS, I said I was OPEN to the idea. Don't assign interpretation to me. Of course correlation is not causation. I have said it a million times."

In response to your little chip:
"The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking. Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading."

Are you "mad"? Well, then I'll just repeat it:

"If you call that stupidity, then I'm (un) surprised that you don't point that out for others. Continue playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack because, I will admit, you're very good at that act."

So, step outside the anger and take a guess. Really, it could actually be fun to see how we (mis)interpret each other.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Does being raised by a single mom count?


It would only go to enforce what has been pointed out: that you are basing much on "feeling".

And before you get upset, your experiences are valid but only within a given context.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, the defender stupidities….

VD went out on a limb to defend some arcane point.
The argument used was of this kind:
“Hey, I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV and I’ve been dating a nurse, so when I tell you that pumice is good for colds, well you better believe me” 
So yes, I will poke fun at VD trying to pass off his engineering degree and translating it to another subject as if it ads credibility. 
It does not mean that I don’t think he’s not knowledgeable outside of engineering.
Just because Stanton Friedman was a physicist does not mean that we should all automatically believe his writings on UFOs…


Now the statement of being open to “intelligence” based on race (untrue – to borrow from VD) would have been fine except that his prejudice (and in a way invalidated the statement by using the false (as in untrue) ) example of Ashkenazi Jews being more intelligent than the norm.

Apart from your diversion of the subject, please illustrate where I have been partisan with regards to VDs statements about intelligence? 
So get off your little rocking horse, and either add/refute/take apart my rebuttal to VD and stop trying to overly politicize all that I write.


Can you tell me why you only get in this “defensive mode” when posters that have strong Con tendencies get questioned but not those that seem more Liberal? I’ve argued many times with MacDoc and MS but you seem blind to that – my guess (and it’s only a guess) is that your “intellectual neutrality” is rather skewed at times.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Can you tell me why you only get in this “defensive mode” when posters that have strong Con tendencies get questioned but not those that seem more Liberal?"

So you do get the point, but try and sidestep it by going on attack while still claiming that my point needs illustrating. Stupidity indeed, AS. Excellent technique, used by the best Fox staff! Ignore the obvious points and attack. It's your Fair and Balanced dance. 

"your “intellectual neutrality” is rather skewed at times"
Nice try but, like many partisan/anti-partisan hacks, you've mistaken intellectual neutrality with how I subjectively determine who can swap respectful posts and/or choose to match behaviour with in posting. You're so deep into your own spin that you can't tell the difference anymore; or, more likely, are just avoiding to favour your attack dance. 

Then there's the entertainment factor. Your lack of intellectual neutrality (hackery), however, is nearing legendary status! 

This gem of hypocrisy would have been less obvious had you not went out of your way to demonstrate what you meant by means of your act:
"Your act of automatically having a knee-jerk reaction to some posters no matter what..."

You had a point but, as usual, did it your way. Congrats and thanks for the entertainment. And, by entertainment, I mean gems like:
"stop trying to overly politicize all that I write."

Too much, coming from you AS. 

Thanks again, AS.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It would only go to enforce what has been pointed out: that you are basing much on "feeling".


Pointed out by me mind you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, you have been quite pointless and meandering in all this. Nice of you to throw about accusations and innuendo without any backing…. 

So once again (this is time for you to focus)…. 
The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


Now, go and show me where your so-called "playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack " is in there?

I think it’s safe for me to give up on your being able to answer that… unless, of course…


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Pointed out by me mind you.


Yes it was - and like I said does not invalidate what your feelings, just would like to see them in a larger context.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You made the statement. As with all language use there sometimes unexpected consequences.
> 
> That you even made the "race/intelligence" connection in the casual way you did speaks volumes.
> So does the squirrel diversion.
> Uncomfortable??....change the topic. ....how very right wing of you. Genetics I guess.


Incase you didn't notice, this is a discussion forum, not a scientific paper. I don't have all day to edit my posts and remove incorrect terms. I am well aware that there is only one race (i.e. humans) when used in the correct biological term. However, the term race is also used in some circles to describe 'genetic subsets'. It depends on the context and who is using the term. The fact that you are stuck on this point or use it as criticism speaks volumes about you.

I am not uncomfortable to speak about my opinions at all. Again, I don't think most people have ability to separate their political leanings from a neutral scientific view. I thought you might, but apparently not. I find it amusing how so many on the left put their head in the sand, just like the religious right when confronted with scientific evidence. If it doesn't fit their agenda, attack the messenger, rather than the message. Typical.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes it was - and like I said does not invalidate what your feelings, just would like to see them in a larger context.


You see the root of your problem is that you can't reconcile reality with your political belief. You believe in equality so you feel that everybody must be created the same. The reality of the situation is that men and women are different. To claim otherwise is akin to saying the earth is only 5000 years old. You are no different than the people pushing creationism concepts. 

It is not an extreme idea that children should have both male and female role models. The sexes are very different and being exposed to different people is a good thing for children.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
> Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


And then there was: "So Beej, are you defending stupidity on the part of VD?" Language is part of hackery.

Convenient oversight. Like I asked, and you "missed":
"So, step outside the anger and take a guess."

In case it isn't clear, a guess in answer to: "Now, go and show me where your so-called "playing the partisan/anti-partisan hack " is in there?" 

Really, take an honest and un-spun, non-hack guess. Briefly, and at the risk of being less entertaining, take a break from the act.

Later on, notably after my point but just as yet another example of your Foxy approach: "Beej, the defender stupidities….". 

What stupidity did I "defend"? 

No matter, it's the "You argued about X so you defend Y (a Bad thing)" approach. Quite the act. That's part of hackery.

So, by all means, use the act. I find it deeply entertaining. Especially the attempted "out" of: "I think it’s safe for me to give up on your being able to answer that… unless, of course…"

Classic. Thanks again.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your statments that it takes one male and one female influence to properly raise children is showing of your bigotry and bias - maybe you should look at the social factors that make you think that way...


Again, it's amazing how quickly people throw out the labels.

My opinion on this subject happens to be the same of a friend of mine who is gay. His sister, who is also gay, recently had a child and is going to raise him with her girlfriend. My friend mentioned that his sister has a lot of anger against men and that he was worried his nephew would be isolated from having male rolemodels. Does his concern make him a Bigot? Or does it make him a realist?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So yes, I will poke fun at VD trying to pass off his engineering degree and translating it to another subject as if it ads credibility.


Where did I bring up engineering? I never did. I said I had a SCIENTIFIC background and that I have taken courses in Biology and Anthropology. 

Incase you don't know (very likely), the scientific method is universal to all subjects. A strong understanding of science is useful when trying to understand and interpret other subjects. I never passed myself off as an expert.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: I like how you kept trying to require proof of your hackery based upon one post of your choice, but are well known to smear others. If nothing else (aside from the Act), you've got guts. 

If you wanted, I could have provided you with a stronger response that didn't follow that old routine.

On topic:
It is obvious that there are groupings of visually immediate physical differences in humanity. There's also differences internally. To assume it doesn't extend beyond that would be ignorant. Research will always be politically charged and there are still problems with IQ tests as well as how much IQ is genetic (some twit at Western comes to mind...Rushton?) and how much is "exercise", but the knee-jerk reactions speaks strongly, in my opinion, to what VD claimed. In general, people (as opposed to persons) are not ready to get into it. 

We could probably discuss it openly and sensibly in person with a couple people at a time but, in a larger forum, it's much more challenging.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If it doesn't fit their agenda, attack the messenger, rather than the message. Typical


Would you like to defend that statement with an example?

You had ZERO cause to get snarky about being challenged on your very poorly phrased sentence about your "science background" and race/intelligence"....I had a valid point and you know it .......instead what did you do



> attack the messenger,


. 

•••



> To assume it doesn't extend beyond that would be ignorant


That's pretty loaded - care to illuminate?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> On topic:
> It is obvious that there are groupings of visually immediate physical differences in humanity. There's also differences internally. To assume it doesn't extend beyond that would be ignorant. Research will always be politically charged and there are still problems with IQ tests as well as how much IQ is genetic (some twit at Western comes to mind...Rushton?) and how much is "exercise", but the knee-jerk reactions speaks strongly, in my opinion, to what VD claimed. In general, people (as opposed to persons) are not ready to get into it.
> 
> We could probably discuss it openly and sensibly in person with a couple people at a time but, in a larger forum, it's much more challenging.


Thanks Beej. You understand and are able to have such a discussion.

I agree, IQ is a really bad and very narrow measure of intelligence. I think recent studies have shown there are around 8 different forms of human intelligence. IQ only measures a couple. IQ has a massive component of exercise and learning to it. My math background would automatically provide me with a high score on the logic portion of the test. However, it wouldn't measure my true 'natural' ability. It's very difficult to separate the two since learning is really a component of intelligence as well.

To determine whether different populations have higher intelligence, you first need to come up with a way of capturing it. We're not there yet, but eventually somebody will figure it out.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Would you like to defend that statement with an example?


Sure. The fact that you discount my opinion based on the 'misuse' of a word is an example. You got stuck on this point and ignored the larger message. I would call that attacking the messenger, rather than the message. 

My use of the word race was even followed by a clarification (i.e. I used the word population in brackets). I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your standards for an internet discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That's pretty loaded - care to illuminate?


That's the point, MD. To assume otherwise is the loaded religious/social/comfort zone problem. It is an unknown, but significant differences are known. As with many things, this will require much research with many short-term "answers" that are flawed. Keep going and remove politics, personal prejudice or "consensus" ignorance. Sorry but, once you toss the obviously flawed religious constructs of morality, everything is open to inspection. And all inspection is open to critique.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Intelligence is an awful term to deal with.

Spacial ability and a few others differ between men and women but there is always a bell curve with soem overlap and there are certain types of calculations chimps can make that easily outgun any human.

Savants have incredible abilities but most often horrid side effects to those abilities.

Since brains continue to grow and change until death any "innate" ability only reflects a single point in time.

Different people haave different abilities.
Some genetic advantages such as long distance running show up more frequently in some subgroups.

etc 
etc

Take the loaded phrases like race, and the vague ones like "intelligence" out and differences become easily discussed..and fascinating.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Sorry but, once you toss the obviously flawed religious constructs of morality, everything is open to inspection. And all inspection is open to critique.


Hence my point about science and having a scientific background. I understand the need to remove such constructs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej and VD 

It's why language use is critical. Differences and variations in the human spectrum and in the cultural spectrum can be discussed, dissected and compared as long as language is used carefully.

•••

VD YOU staked your claim in the science background - you put the conversation in that realm - I didn't miss the "larger message" in the least. To be able to discuss potentially explosive issues language is absolutely critical.

Do you think I would have challenged you if you had used "populations" or genetic group ...no....you know it - you still try and defend something that you know and acknowledged was poorly worded.

Give it a rest - if AS had worded it that way I would have and have taken him up on it as well.

Putting race and intelligence together in a conversation is akin to lighting a molotov cocktail in a club.
Damn certain it's gonna get hot.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Intelligence is an awful term to deal with.


What do you mean by, 'to deal with'?

In a social sense or a scientific sense?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, you seem to be stuck in a construct of your own reality, rambling on about “hackery”. 
Should I start looking at all your postings with the optics that it’s biased with a special interest veneer? Really, how does that work – how does one become a lobbyist? Do you find facts to support the conclusion of the highest bidder? I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt with regards to regards to GHG and carbon sequesting, but maybe it should be looked upon with “what’s your agenda”. Wonder who are your paymasters? You seem rather keen on Harper lately; did you get some government largesse per chance?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Would you like to defend that statement with an example?
> 
> You had ZERO cause to get snarky about being challenged on your very poorly phrased sentence about your "science background" and race/intelligence"....I had a valid point and you know it .......instead what did you do
> 
> ...











I just wish you would leave the name of the person quoted so we could follow the thread properly.

The software does that automatically for you in case you didn't grasp that yet.

My guess is that you know full well and choose to edit it out just to screw up the flow of the system, or am I wrong?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

VD said:


> I don't think most people have ability to separate their political leanings from a neutral scientific view.


Please, next you’ll be telling us that two+two is not equal to four….
There are ways of having sound science and having a correct methodology; it’s only when some try to use “science” under the guise of their ideology that pisses me off. 

Now you are bringing up that the “left” has it’s head in the sand when it comes to science. 
Both the right and left often draw faulty conclusion from the facts.

So are you thinly trying to ascertain once again that there are different intelligence levels between the races? 

Einstein re-read what I wrote, it was clear and to the point (but obviously beyond your comprehension)
The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.

So think twice before saying I think all humans are of equal intelligence. There is an objective reality and even if you want to skirt it for fables of your own mind, you may want to exercise some of that caution you are trying to preach. 
It’s a sad irony that you fall victim to the critique you are trying shove my way. 

Any work of science should be looked at from the point of view of it’s historical originator – on this I seem to agree with Beej. But you can move beyond that and in fact with critical thinking can and in most cases this knowledge is added to our collective body of science. 

You can look at someone like Cyril Burt who seems to have similar leaning as you do VD. His basic claim was that IQ was influenced by genetics – his studies of twins seemed to show that correlation. That is, until most of his research was taken down a few notches as being fraudulent (he still has a few defenders). Burt’s “research” was used to demonstrate the difference in intelligence between whites and blacks in the US. 

Sometimes biases can be unconscious – such was the case with craniometry – a clear case of priori convictions. Once highly believed but total bunk (maybe MF can apply this example to global warming)…

When you get to informing me/us that you feel that children should have a male/female influence but use the anger of one parent against the opposite sex as your reasoning, I think that you should provide a better argument than that.


VD, if you PM me, I'd like to sent you a copy of "The mismeasure of Man" - basically an exploration of the historical racism of intelligence....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So are you thinly trying to ascertain once again that there are different intelligence levels between the races?


Oh uh... you used the word race. Let's stick with genetic sub-population to keep others happy.

I said I was open to the idea that different populations are different, which may include such things as intelligence. 



ArtistSeries said:


> Einstein re-read what I wrote, it was clear and to the point (but obviously beyond your comprehension)


Nice snipe. You have no idea of how wrong you are. :lmao: 



ArtistSeries said:


> The problem with the measure of intelligence is that it suffers from reification and in ranking.
> Now correlation is not the same as cause and someone like you should be able to understand that. This does not mean that I don’t believe in biologic variety just that your claiming of intelligence differences is a blanket statement that is highly misleading.


I guess you missed the part where I said intelligence was a multidimensional concept. Just because something is abstract does not mean one cannot grasp it and have some level of metrics associated with it. 

You are reading WAY too much into my statements. You are making all sorts of assumptions and getting off track. 

Intelligence is like pornography in that it's difficult to define but you know it when you see it.



ArtistSeries said:


> When you get to informing me/us that you feel that children should have a male/female influence but use the anger of one parent against the opposite sex as your reasoning, I think that you should provide a better argument than that.


But that wasn't my reasoning. It was simply an anecdote and a response to your accusation of bigotry. 



ArtistSeries said:


> VD, if you PM me, I'd like to sent you a copy of "The mismeasure of Man" - basically an exploration of the historical racism of intelligence...


Fine with me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vandave Rev 2


> I said I was open to the idea that different populations are different, which may include such things as intelligence


That is NOT what you said orginally. This is what you said originally.

Vandave Rev 1


> As somebody with a scientific background, I am open to the idea that there are racial differences for such things as intelligence.


You also introduced political spectrum as a broad brush snipe after decrying exactly that.



> Originally Posted by VD
> I don't think most people have ability to separate their political leanings from a neutral scientific view.





> I find it amusing how so many on the left put their head in the sand,


You self describe yourself as desiring of neutrality and in the same breath blow it away with a dumb comment.......TWICE.

Perhaps along with the engineering courses a bit of language framework might be beneficial.



> You are reading WAY too much into my statements. You are making all sorts of assumptions and getting off track.


No he's not...you're just not seeing all the subtext you include in your dialogue.
Is AS dissing you?...yep.
Is his basis for doing so evident from your statements?? ...yep

I'll give you this, you do better than most on the right side of the political spectrum to attempt to actually defend a position instead of relying on that good ol' gut reaction.

Then you descend into "You know it when you see it" 

•••

Now can we get back to why some want to with hold equal rights from their fellow Canadians?

or even better provide an answer to why removing the word marriage from the legal code FOR ALL is unacceptable?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, you seem to be stuck in a construct of your own reality, rambling on about “hackery”.
> Should I start looking at all your postings with the optics that it’s biased with a special interest veneer? Really, how does that work – how does one become a lobbyist? Do you find facts to support the conclusion of the highest bidder? I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt with regards to regards to GHG and carbon sequesting, but maybe it should be looked upon with “what’s your agenda”. Wonder who are your paymasters? You seem rather keen on Harper lately; did you get some government largesse per chance?


AS, once again, asks but does not answer. Just keep going because it's the AS Factor! 

I repeat the question:
What stupidity did I "defend"? 

But don't worry AS, here's the fun part (at least for me  ). It is amazing how defensive you get when somebody uses your tactics on you (quick association, quick labelling, etc.). I could point out other things, but this was too easy.

And just as a favour to you, I'll even answer your questions although you don't like answering mine:

If it were true, but it's not.

Emailed resume.

No data, no case. Positive spin though. Some lobbyists don't care much about supporting data and logic; I do.

Thanks and my agenda is liberalism. That's not a jab at you, that's pretty much my agenda and it isn't related to my work.

I don't have a paymaster. Do you mean employer? 

"Keen" how? Either way, not true. I'm actually sort of keen, but wary, regarding Dion. I'm not paid by government, but were someone getting government cheques it wouldn't change my opinion of them. Now if they were government envelopes of cash... 

Did I get them all?

-Happy Festivus


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Perhaps along with the engineering courses a bit of language framework might be beneficial.


You understood my position, yet had to get stuck on a specific term. A simple correction would have sufficed. Why not use a little bit of civility? Your attitude demonstrates low emotional intelligence.

You might want to look into it and put some thought to it. Seriously. You have a serious sociological issue. Symtoms... You need to put others down to validate your own opinions. Diagnosis... Low self esteem?


----------

