See its one thing if she just has a baby out of wedlock, its another that she preaches hardline Christian views while breaking most of them herself. I admit slut was harsh, but she is someone who craves attention, and if she's been having sex regularly since she was 16, its not a stretch to imagine shes been having sex regularly with other men.
You know that she has had regular sex since she was 16? I will admit I couldn't care less what Bristol Palin has said about her sex life in the media, but I had not heard that. Or are you just assuming that someone who got pregnant automatically has regular sex?
I also wonder which of the "hardline Christian views" she has been breaking that you readily know about them.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I think there is a lot of new research that shows where a couple divorces amicably, and where the children have maximum contact with both parents, children of divorce are just as happy and well-adjusted as other children.
It is essential that the legal system (courts and lawyers) work to resolve matters collaboratively as much as possible, and not through litigation. Parents that put the interests of their children first, do a great service. Joint/shared custody is becoming the norm, and should only be departed from in unusual cases.
It seems intuitive to me that an amicable divorce is likely to produce much better outcomes than a bitter divorce. It also seems likely that an amicable divorce is likely better than a dysfunctional marriage, although I'm not sure how you'd be able to test that. (Ask people to self-identify their marriages as dysfunctional?)
My point was more that although statistical measurement certainly isn't perfect, it can be done. I'm sure eventually it will be done on same-sex parenting as well, once the sample size grows larger.
Wallerstein, Judith S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(3), 349-360.
This study showed moderate to severe clinical depression in over one-third of the children of divorced parents 5 years after the divorce.
A British study indicated that children of divorced parents are 3 times more likely to become teenage parents.
Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp. 299-316
I'm glad everything worked out for you, but that's not necessarily the norm. I think it also depends a lot on how amicable the divorce was and how old the child was when it occured, although I don't have time to look that up just now.
And I do apologize for derailing the thread.
Fair enough. There's always going to be studies with counter-points. I don't have time to go through those papers or to search up my own sources as I'm leaving for the weekend. If you'd like to continue the topic on divorce we can PM, I dont want to derail the thread any more.
To bring it back to topic, my point is that it is difficult to determine whether or not those traits come from upbringing or genetics. So you can't say that gay marriage has any different effect (positively or negatively) on potential children than a traditional marriage does.
If all humans were to be male, we wouldn't exist. Don't say it's right/wrong based on a biological reason, that's just as dogmatic as a religion.
There's nothing wrong feeling uncomfortable when seeing two men kiss, you are a product of your past and you can't change that.
But we have the ability to act a certain way despite our emotions, not just because of them.
And that's was a perfect opportunity to make a deliberate choice to impart a different lesson to your kid than the one that you were raised on.
My mom is deathly afraid of water, but she constantly makes a choice to not show it and act normally when the grand-kids are at the beach or pool in order not to transfer her feelings to her grand-kids.
For the record..I Did. and I still do today.
The question was: How will this affect you, personally, in any possible negative way"
All I said was I didn't like answering those questions so at the time it did affect me in a negative way,what I grew up saying and what I said are 2 different things.
You know that she has had regular sex since she was 16? I will admit I couldn't care less what Bristol Palin has said about her sex life in the media, but I had not heard that. Or are you just assuming that someone who got pregnant automatically has regular sex?
I also wonder which of the "hardline Christian views" she has been breaking that you readily know about them.
Is it assuming? Of course, because I don't know and don't care about her personal life. Of course her and Levi Johnson were dating for nearly two and half years before she got pregnant, so it's a stretch to say they never had sex for say 2+ years, then lo and behold the first time they did they got pregnant. I think they were practioners of coitus interptus, and it happened to fail that time.
As to hardline Christian views broken, well...
Sex before marriage
Pregnancy out of wedlock
Adultery
Lust (sin)
Greed (profiting from her pregnancy)
And those are just related to her pregnancy. She's a hypocrite, plain and simple. Again calling her a slut was harsh, my other criticisms are valid.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
See its one thing if she just has a baby out of wedlock, its another that she preaches hardline Christian views while breaking most of them herself. I admit slut was harsh, but she is someone who craves attention, and if she's been having sex regularly since she was 16, its not a stretch to imagine shes been having sex regularly with other men.
This really needs to be embedded, this video is so incredible its one of the funniest things Ive seen in some time. They need to autotune this song like eat tha poo poo...
One thing that gets lost in all of this is the actual number of homosexuals is realistically 1% (or less) of the population in Canada and the United States. Oh, sure, there is that mythical figure of 10% but it is pure BS and we all know it; gay people know this figure is crap far more than anybody else does. The origin of 10% comes from surveys that asked question along the lines of "have you ever for a single instant been momentarily attracted to a member of the same sex or had thoughts of . . . ? If yes, that's good enough for the propaganda, you are considered gay." It is completely unrealistic. Just look around at all the people you actually know. Are 10% of them homosexuals? No. What about 1 in 100? Now we're getting closer to reality. No matter what Hollywood would have you believe.
The "gay rights" people have done more damage than good to themselves by heavily exaggerating their numbers. Claiming (again, unrealistically) to be 10% of the population makes them seem more of a threat to those who oppose them. If they realistically stated "Look, we're less than 1% of the population" there would likely be far less opposition to same-sex marriage as it would seem far less threatening. Unfortunately, for their own cause, the loudest of the gay activists would have you believe that there are just as many homosexuals out there as heterosexual people. Ludicrous.
Here's a comparison in numbers only. In the United States, people who identify themselves as Black amount to about 13% of the population. Now ask yourself seriously. Is the number of homosexuals comparable to the number of Blacks in America? Not even remotely. Are there over 30,000,000 homosexuals in the United States. No. Not a chance.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
One thing that gets lost in all of this is the actual number of homosexuals is realistically 1% (or less) of the population in Canada and the United States.
According to a link Mikey posted earlier in this thread from StatsCan, 2.5% of Canadians reported as homosexual in the last census. That's just those that are willing to admit to the government that they're gay; if you include those who want to keep their sexual preferences private or who aren't "out" yet, then it's probably much higher than 2.5%.
Of course, it doesn't even matter how many gay people there are. Regardless if they number 10% or 5% or 1% or 0.0001% of the population, denying them civil rights is an injustice and should be remedied.
Quote:
Unfortunately, for their own cause, the loudest of the gay activists would have you believe that there are just as many homosexuals out there as heterosexual people. Ludicrous.
Citation needed.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
One thing that gets lost in all of this is the actual number of homosexuals is realistically 1% (or less) of the population in Canada and the United States
"What gets lost in the black fight for civil rights as that they almost all had arms and legs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
If they realistically stated "Look, we're less than 1% of the population" there would likely be far less opposition to same-sex marriage as it would seem far less threatening.
I don't buy that for a second. We've already seen it many times in this type of threads about "Why are we wasting so much of our time on such a small population? Shouldn't our politicians be worried about bigger issues?" It's a very common theme with conservative groups in the United States. "Why are we wasting time and resources of government on such a tiny percentage of the population when so many people are struggling to put food on the table?" As for the threat to traditional marriage, those against gay marriage would see 1 single gay couple married as an affront to the institution, so the numbers really don't matter. They would be opposed to gay marriage if it was 10%, 1% or "2 people on the entire planet".
Last edited by Devils'Advocate; 05-12-2012 at 06:05 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
This really needs to be embedded, this video is so incredible its one of the funniest things Ive seen in some time. They need to autotune this song like eat tha poo poo...
Did I hear her say that the first ever person with AIDS was Canadian? Right before the 3 min mark.
Edit: She totally did. Some french guy in 1980 who suppressed his immune system with pot and something about intestines and a corpse.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 05-12-2012 at 09:54 AM.
You know Mikey, for a guy who throws around the word "tyranny" a lot in defense against anti-gun arguments, you sure do a poor job of recognizing tyranny when it actually happens.
The majority voting on rights issues that adversely affect minorities is "tyranny of the majority," no matter the proportion of the minority in question.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
According to a link Mikey posted earlier in this thread from StatsCan, 2.5% of Canadians reported as homosexual in the last census. That's just those that are willing to admit to the government that they're gay; if you include those who want to keep their sexual preferences private or who aren't "out" yet, then it's probably much higher than 2.5%.
No, the statscan website said the homosexual population was about 1%.
"1.1% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported in 2009 that they consider themselves to be homosexual (gay or lesbian). 0.9% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported in 2009 that they consider themselves to be bisexual."
Why would homosexuals be afraid to admit (I'm assuming anonymously) that they're gay? It's not like the identities of the persons involved in the surveys are public knowledge?
The highest figure I have seen for homosexuals is 2.5%...not that it matters to anyone.
One thing that gets lost in all of this is the actual number of homosexuals is realistically 1% (or less) of the population in Canada and the United States.
If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. Interesting to note perhaps, but of little relevance.
It "gets lost" because it is completely beside the point. The proportion of the minority matters not. Not saying you are doing so (I can only hope you are trying to play devils advocate), but the "small numbers" line has always been a red herring.
You know Mikey, for a guy who throws around the word "tyranny" a lot in defense against anti-gun arguments, you sure do a poor job of recognizing tyranny when it actually happens.
The majority voting on rights issues that adversely affect minorities is "tyranny of the majority," no matter the proportion of the minority in question.
I don't think of marriage as a "right".
Everything is a 'right' nowadays. If same sex couples can get married, then I want a membership to Only Womens Fitness, ......because I feel like its discrmiinatory to not include my people in their organization. I just want to get in shape like everybody else. I mean, what's the big deal to the women who attend Only Womens Fitness if I go there? How does it really affect them personally?
