Roundup

Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids – This is important on several levels.  It demonstrates the rather obvious implications of gays adopting children, it refutes the “born that way” myth and it shows how much ideology drives “science” (just as it does in Darwinian evolution and global warming).  Read it.

Democrats get TWICE the amount of foreign contributions as Republicans – sorta puts the nail in the coffin of the pathetic and false accusations against the Chamber of Commerce, doesn’t it?

Many people behave ethically when it profits them or costs them nothing, but true ethical behavior is displayed when there is a risk associated with it.

Hilarious: Left tries to ridicule Governor Palin for “don’t party like it’s 1773 yet” tweet but doesn’t know that’s when the Boston Tea Party happened — I assume those same Lefty history buffs mocked Obama’s “57 states” comment until their throats were raw.  Still waiting for the MSM to publicize this with half the energy they used to distort Christine O’Donnell’s 1st Amendment comments (while ignoring all her direct hits on Coons).

Farcebook is just a little inconsistent on their guidelines

The social networking site facebook has allied with GLAAD to fight anti-gay references on the facebook site. You will get no argument from me when someone tries to prevent juvenile harassment and bullying of gays (I agree with Andrew Wilcow that gay people should exercise their second amendment right more frequently when faced with physical bullying and intimidation).

The wonderful people at facebook have a “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” for all facebook users. But, this is where it gets a little farcical. There are a variety of facebook groups that deal with the topic of Rush Limbaugh, and when I say “deal”, I mean things like “waiting for him to die”, hoping he “should die slowly”, etc. You get the picture.

Peer review: How much more believable than fortune telling these days? – No, that can’t be.  Scientists are the only professionals untainted by original sin and would never, ever mislead for the sake of personal gain (or to avoid losing tenure, employment or reputation).  Right?!

Wise Latina Update – elections matter.  McCain would have never put such an awful judge on the Supreme Court.

James Cameron: Green For Thee – What. A. Hypocrite.  Watch the short video and see what not-so-incredible sacrifices he’s making compared to what he expects you to do.

The abortion nurse’s daughter: Inside minds at the mill – all this and more.  Tragic.

I asked Abigail if the clinic aborted women who weren’t pregnant. Yes, she said, adding the clinic owner often joked “anyone who wants an abortion can have one, whether she’s pregnant or not!”

13 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. As I commented at Wintery Knight’s regarding the “Gay” parents piece, the most appropriate reaction to the story is “DUH!” Kids will follow the teachings of their parents and act on them in their own lives one way or another, unless some event causes a paradigm shift or epiphany. The child of racists will likely be racists. We know from statistics that children are more sexually active than ever before now that society has loosened morals since the 50’s and 60’s. To think that kids with homosexual parents might be more likely to become homos themselves is self-evident. Only the activists need such studies to be convinced of this obvious truth and I doubt they will be no matter how many such studies present the same results.

    Regarding the peer review piece, I have had “peer review” used against me in blog debates, most notably by a former visitor with the initials GKS. I researched “peer review” at the time using only Wikipedia and found from their information that peer reviews can be less than reliable to firm up one’s argument on any given topic. It’s possible that one’s research paper can be reviewed by the very guy who’s theory is being critiqued by the results of the research and thus, the paper can be rejected in order to preserve the reviewer’s own status and funding.

    Equally unreliable, though like Gospel to GKS, is the citation index. GKS used this to dismiss a point I made using Thomas Sowell as a source. This index lists how many times others have cited a person’s work and thus, if cited often, that person is considered more highly knowledgeable and respected a source. But, for example, if every liberal cites Paul Krugman in making a case on financial issues, it only means that every liberal who does thinks the world of Krugman, not that Krugman knows his butt from a hole in the ground.

    In debates, one should not feel intimidated by the use of peer reviews or citation indexes by one’s opponent. They are merely status symbols and ego strokes for the reviewed and cited.

    As to the Palin thing, I have to admit that I didn’t immediately know the significance of the year 1773, but I couldn’t believe that ANYONE would forget and confuse the significance of 1776, so I assumed some specific point was being made. I did NOT assume she was that stupid anymore than I thought that Obama really thought there was more than 50 states. Libs are just too willing to think the worst to bother checking before they spew.

    Like

  2. Here is word for word conversation (over facebook) between a friend and I about this article:

    Friend: “The most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read.”

    Me: “Why is this ridiculous? It doesn’t say that it is always that way just more likely to be that way. And it sounds like the guy who did the research did his best to be unbiased.”

    Friend: “Because while it may seem unbiased it’s things like this article that keep people who are gay from being unable to adopt. Having a gay parent allows the person to feel comfortable in their choice of whether they are gay or straight. Now kids with straight parents are less likely to ‘come out of the closet’ for fear of backlash from their family, friends, and anyone in their daily lives. There are people in their 30’s, 40’s, even 50’s that still have not come out. So this whole thing just seems like yet another ‘money see monkey do’ blame game. People just want an explanation for people who love people of the same sex. My mom’s gay yet I’ve never had the urge to ‘try women’. I know several friends who have gay parents and their perfectly happy with the opp sex. I’m just sick of seeing people writing ‘gay parents=gay kids'”

    Me: “I have no doubt that a gay couple is capable of loving and caring for children just as much as a straight couple. Considering that the guy who did the research aided gay parents in the trial shows that he was probably unbiased as he did the research. It doesn’t say gay parents=gay kids just “more likely.” Coming from a medical/scientific perspective, I think the real significance of this research is that it refutes the claim that people who are gay are “born that way” (it doesn’t matter if the parents are gay or straight).”

    Like

    1. ““Because while it may seem unbiased it’s things like this article that keep people who are gay from being unable to adopt.”.

      This looks to me like a non sequitur. Of coarse, anybody can make a logically fallacious mistake in these types of forums, but these mistakes many times reveal a root of bad thinking, not only in this persons mind, but more importantly, in the collective mind of the society that put those thoughts there. What does the ability/inability to adopt have to do with whether or not the study is biased? If homosexuality is normal, what difference would it make the ultimate sexual orientation of the children of homosexual adoptive parents anyway? Why wouldn’t homosexuals, or their science be damned defenders, be proud of a study that shows the increased likelihood of adopted children turning out just like their adoptive parents? Where’s the “gay pride” for their own children? I am a Christian and I am doing everything in my power to defend them against the onslaught of a society hostile to this belief, and would be thrilled if they turned out to be just like me in that respect whether or not adoption agencies frowned on my being able to adopt for those same reasons; which, though I can’t prove it, I’m sure has happened. Should scientific enquiry be quelled when it’s conclusions set themselves up against our PC sensibilities? How is that different than the accusations of “the church” having an anti-intellectual history? Shouldn’t we seek truth, no matter where it leads?

      Like

  3. That Sotomayor dissented from a refusal to grant certoirari over a very clear case is not a surprise. Don’t forget, this is the chick (chica?) who dismissed the New Haven firefighter’s case, finding no wrongdoing, only to get smacked down by the Supreme Court. The lady has NO idea how to interpret the law and to even follow precedent, because she’s a total hack. Oh, well.

    Like

  4. I’m wondering just how strict Facebook’s policy concerning gay bashing is.

    I read this on Facebook just today:

    Status: “Please wear purple today in support of gays who are victims of bullies. ”

    Comment in response: “I’m not wearing any gay purple shirt”

    Like

  5. Mark,

    My daughter was upset that they chose her favorite color for that purpose. She doesn’t support bullying homosexuals or anybody, but she hates the thought that someone might think she supports the lifestyle because she’s wearing her favorite color. And that’s what it will be. Why must they focus only on homos who are bullied and not all victims of bullying? To promote the lifestyle as acceptable, of course. It’s as if they are thankful for the suicides of homo kids so that activists have something else they can use. I know saying so will piss off homosexuals and their enablers, but if it wasn’t true, they would not have waited for homosexual kids to kill themselves before they came out against bullying.

    Like

    1. Right on, Marshall. These people are like ghouls who come out when someone is killed. They demand endorsement, not just tolerance. And too many cowardly Christians can’t don’t even have the spine / guts / choose your body part to state the obvious: God designed marriage for one man and one woman and homosexual behavior is a sin.

      Like

    2. “My daughter was upset that they chose her favorite color for that purpose. She doesn’t support bullying homosexuals or anybody, but she hates the thought that someone might think she supports the lifestyle because she’s wearing her favorite color.”

      I understand your daughter completely! I have always loved rainbows and the true meaning behind them but since I was in school rainbows became a way of identifying with the gay lifestyle. I debated about whether or not to post pictures of my daughter’s rainbow homeschooling projects (we learned about Noah this week) but then figured that if anyone had the wrong idea they would know it as soon as they clicked on the post! Its a shame how Satan twists what is meant for good into evil.

      Like

      1. Your rainbow comment is timely! I just made myself a note last night to blog on “taking back the rainbow.”

        My 17 yr. old was at a ballet workshop in another city last summer and looking for a church. She has marvelous discernment and was already thinking that one she was considering might be problematic and asked me to look at it. I half-jokingly told her to watch out for rainbows, and sure enough that is just what they had! They had a lot of weasel words about God’s view of human sexuality and when you peeled back the layers they were awful.

        Then my wife kidded me and said that I should be careful because my blog has a rainbow on it.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s