barfbag

extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

 

@ John C,

Was the "Think of the Children" Simpsons episode to do with Gay Parenting? Otherwise it is just a common sentence applicable in thousands of ways. I've probably used it, and i bet it was used in almost every language since the dawn of speech.

Now you suggest this sentence arose from pop culture as if "Think of the children" is such an abstract thought.

Show me that the topic of the Simpsons was gay parenting and I will revoke the allegation that it was an off topic troll.

gay parents are great for children

 

Yes. I was mistaken. I forgot the OP had made such a ridiculous assertion.

I would need to see more of that Simpsons scene though to agree it was concerning Gay Parenting. I am not up on my Simpsons Education. Until then I will still consider that off topic trolling.

Even though I am no Simpsons expert I can still find a video of them on a variety of topics including trolling as I said that post seems to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeQmkI7tFI

Any study comparing parenting skills between Gays and Straights must include the many bad parents who fell into parenting by accident, where Gays must often be well off enough to Adopt or Surrogate (in male-male couples) and most frequently enter into parenting roles by choice.

The results are thus always predictable, AND IN NO WAY SHOCKING.

The OP and title of this thread indicate right wingers should be SHOCKED by this tainted survey.

It is weird to even see so many "Shocked" individuals here. I thought this was common sense.

The researchers tested the structure by placing it in a chamber of water and exposing it to a solar simulator — a light source that simulates various intensities of solar radiation. They found they were able to convert 85 percent of solar energy into steam at a solar intensity 10 times that of a typical sunny day.

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/new-spongelike-structure-converts-solar-energy-into-steam-0721

MIT announced today that with only 10X the solar intensity of a sunny day they can convert 85% of the solar energy into steam.

This could be used for desalination as an example

@ Swanson,

Given that you refuse to visit the Conservapedia site, how can you make any judgement about anything being misquoted and/or out of context?

 

Okay. I'll bite.

Let's start with the quote "gay parents are great for children". Asserted to be from OP and in Quotes implying it is being quoted (unless I misunderstand the use of quotes).

So that is how I can,

make any judgement about anything being misquoted and/or out of context?

 

Anyways. Next thread. This is borderline trolling now, although post 48 was a blatant troll.

I'm sure you saw the above without having me find it for you.

@ Swansont,

While I understand your argument. The other response you are listing (JohnC) seems overly disappointing. It is more like a collection of misquoted, out of context, unrelated words construed to look mildly on topic.

I'm sure conservapedia (never heard of it and I am not looking it up) is supporting whatever his views are, but was it authored by a monkey or does it have similar criteria to Wikipedia (name similarity and all). The entire Simpsons reference was also bewildering, were they talking about gay parenting? There is no context. The Simpsons has run a long time, and you could likely find many interesting quotes, but are they relevant or on topic? I could post the first word of that video on youtube and claim I was talking about the IBM motto. What does the Simpsons video have to do with the price of tea in China?

@ Swansont,

The university graduates would actually know more about math, so the results are to be expected, but there is nothing unfair about the assessment.

 

Yes. Which brings us full circle to the claims of the OP. The OP and title of this thread claim that the results are "SHOCKING".

It seems we both agree that if you stack the deck with trained runners/mathletes/wannabe parents the results should be exactly what is expected. In other words you could have told the person the results of the "study" before they even did a "study". The study is meaningless and to the results are what we would expect.

That is not in any way "Shocking".

The OP further goes on to say (in essence) that gay parents are better than straight parents without even mentioning averages, to which we reply "Not in all cases".

The OP leaves us with the Phrase "Think of the children". Ten oz says that might mean political changes in his country, but there was no clear point, and after the first two errors (blanket statement and "shocking") I was less inclined to guess.

I think the "contest" would be better (less predictable) if it was like a beauty contest where only the good specimens could participate, because it is true that most bad parents would fit into the straight parent categories and pull down their average.

I understand your point though. It is less a matter of stacking the deck as of letting the misfits of group b taint the results.

This should almost be a Math Thread topic because we are getting deeper into statistical analysis/confounding variables and the like.

@ SwansonT,

 

So what might you conclude about their expected parenting ability/attitudes, should one measure it and compare it to the population at large?

 

It would be like giving the same math exam to both University Graduates and bums on the street. Some bums would do well and might be math experts, but we should expect the academia crowd to do better. This does not mean the academia crowd has more IQ than the bums, but it does mean they are trained and more eager for the subject.

Note: Although I did not see how your race analogy fit before it now makes sense. I suppose it is like comparing running abilities with someone who has trained and likes running against an average joe. I admit when I am wrong.

My last post explained my position, but comparing those who want to parent and "train for it" (running analogy) against average joes is most always going to see the trained one win.

The ability to parent though is not related to being gay whatsoever in this survey. The desires to be a good parent are strong in these padawan. The desires in Straight couples (who on occasion have unwanted pregnancy's) are not clearly as strong.

THE BELOW STATEMENT IS GENERALIZATION AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE 100% FACTUAL (although I'd wager someone will quote it as me saying it as fact)

In a nutshell we are comparing the parenting abilities of those who want children against those who are ambivalent about it.

I do not trust the subset of straight parents used. I am sure I can find straight parents who are as eager and well trained as the gay parenting populace. Then it would be a fair comparison. It is letting in the bad parents which would more likely fall in the straight parent category because of stated unwanted pregnancies and such that ruins the comparisons fairness.

I think it would be easier to find bad straight parents because gays more often need to jump through many hoops to parent. You seem to think this means straight parents are worse, but I think those (weeds) bad parents should not even be in the comparison. I think they should be an entirely different category.

Wealth also should not be a part of it, but as pointed out in my last post many gay parents (especially male-male) have been able to afford semination/surrogacy or had enough wealth to be considered a stable home environment.

It is like you are concluding that because Gays are in many cases wealthy they are better at being parents. There is a logic to it, but it is not fair unless you weighed in straight parents of equal wealth.

This thread is picking up again so I will make an effort to be clear.

Let's first look at group A. The Gay Parents.

To become a gay parent...

A) Their child comes from a surrogate: If this gay couple is willing to spend over $50 000 for artificial insemination coupled with hiring a womens womb for 9 months then chances are being parents ids fulfilling a life long dream of theirs. There is also a chance that they are wealthy or at least have two good male incomes to afford this method. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

B) Their child comes from a previous relationship: In some case Gays have had straight relationships in their past where a child has resulted. In this instance there is no difference between the gay parent and straight parent, however for a gay a partner to date them they would need to be willing to become a step parent and is choosing to become a parent. You could also factor in that in some of these cases courts have decided that the custodial parent is better (but only in some cases). So in this situation we have at least 1 gay parent choosing to enter a relationship involving parenting.

C) Adoption: For any couple to adopt a child there are many hurdles to cross. The couple must have a nice home, stable and above average income, pleasant personalities, and no criminal records or history of serious mental disorders. These rough guidelines apply to any adopting couples, and it would be even harder for a gay couple even in this day and age. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

There is also the possibility of a child resulting from an affair or other less common scenarios and in the cases of males raising the baby (Male-Male couple) then they must want it and the female of the affair mist not want it or is deemed unfit by courts. In a female-female relationship in dealing with a child from an affair then there may be some equal animosity/ambivalence towards parenting as in some straight relationships.

D) Female-Female gays getting sperm from donor: This is a very planned pregnancy if it requires seeking sperm, so one or both partners is extremely in want of a child. There can be no doubt they went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

So if we look at A,B,C,D above the Gay parents are for the most part eager to be parents and in some cases (mostly Male-male) are very well off. There can be no doubt that most of them went far out of their way to experience parenthood.

These are all well known and documented modern family types. It would at the very least seem much harder on average (especially in male-male couples) for them to have an unwanted pregnancy. (although still possible).

So...

Is it really fair to compare the above groups parenting skills against a child that was conceived by an 18 year old in the back seat of car by an unwed couple who marries for the sake of the child?

I know not all children were conceived in the back seat of a car, but I want to be clear that unwanted and unplanned pregnancies can occur in straight relationships a lot more frequently than in a female-female or male-male relationship. Unless cheating or rape is involved it is impossible for the gay couples to have an unwanted pregnancy.

So who is the better parent?

If I said straight people were better parents it would make me a Bigot. I think the Survey is claiming the reverse which is reverse bigotry.

If I were conducting this survey I could surely get any result I wanted by manipulating who I allowed into it.

Anyways. My position...

NOTE FUZZWOOD for first pointing this out in the thread.

My position is that Gays parents are most frequently parents by choice and in male-male cases often well off enough to pass adoption requirements or pay for surrogacy.

Straight couples don't even need to have a decent IQ to become parents. (IQ can relate to income potential noted above with some male male couples).

I do not think it is a fair comparison. This has been the same stance I have had, but I am trying to be clear.

There should be better controls in place.

- For every adopted child by a gay couple in the survey they should at least use one adopted child by a straight couple (although bias might still make the adoption agencies triple check the gay couple).

- For every gay couple with one step parent there should be a straight couple with one step parent.

- For every gay parent awarded custody by a court should be weighed against a straight parent who was awarded custody by a court.

Things like this would make the survey a little more fair than directly comparing vastly different families.

You cannot say they are better parents simply because they are gay even if on average. Even if a survey were produced where the results were less orchestrated, it would still only be a sampling of 500 children and the survey would vary as you approached couples of varying cultures or just different couples.

This survey did not just compare gays vs straights as parents they are also comparing wealth, occupations, criminal backgrounds, and so much more. This is why I still maintain it is not a fair survey.

I think post # 26 said it best. I was trying to be more polite about it but you did not get the hint.

You are telling us a book you admit to reading and rereading at least 4 times is not worth the time of day.

I think the idea is ridiculous. I think your justification is ridiculous. I think this thread is ridiculous.

I think Acme was being polite in post # 26

Why on earth would you read a book that you hold in contempt 4 times?

Actually... I really do not want to know.

May I suggest a purge in the appropriate container?

 

Exactly!

I agree this thread is based on a ridiculous survey and should be classified as trash. The survey is not a fair comparison and might even promote reverse Bigotry. It should have been put in the trash a page ago (imho) .

@ Swansont,

This is my final post on the subject because it is getting off topic.

Neither is a 100m race between me and Usain Bolt, but that doesn't mean the result would be "inaccurate". Yeah, he won, but it's not fair cuz he's faster, man.

 

How is a foot race not fair when no cheating is involved. Using that new logic no race in history is fair as someone will always be faster.

I stand by the idea that comparing straight parents whom can often become parents by accident or against their wishes against gay parents who for the most part have entered into parenthood by choice (how could it be otherwise for most part) is unfair.

Now you are suggesting that a fair race is not fair if one of the competitors is faster....

I cannot argue with such "logic".

@ Swansont,

Huh? How does that make the results inaccurate? That's an explanation for the difference

 

The results are not accurate if they use a group that is predetermined to be better or good parents against a group that can have children without predetermination.

Do you think this "survey" is fair and that it is "Shocking" to the right wing? Really?

Most children were the biological child of the index parent or of the index parent’s partner (408, 82%)

 

So now we are talking about gays that

a) Are heterosexual enough to engage in straight sex to get pregnant.

b) Have had a court decide they are a better parent than their spouse and awarded custody

c) Paid for a surrogate or had themselves artificially inseminated to get pregnant.

For them to be a gay couple then the partner would also need to be in want of children in the relationship in some cases or they would not date a single parent or someone who is having a child.

Again this would appear to be a group that is wanting children, and not all heterosexual pregnancies are wanted to varying degrees.

Yet still with 8% of the couples adopting as a gay couple and still subjected to a battery of requirements before adoption can be considered.

Not a fair comparison.

@ Johnc,

 

Re."Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest."

Do you really not think that figures like these are derived from averages?

 

No you're confused.

When I said, "This author" I was referring to the Author of the OP. The OP makes blank statements based on a falsified (if we consider the comparison of eager parents with good jobs, good criminal records, and likely well off or at least home owners with an average set of parents) survey. So yes that Author made no mention of averages.

Thanks for pointing out that the quoted article also made no mention of averages though.

ALSO.

"You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one is better than the other based upon this article."

Nor did anyone suggest that one should.

 

Really? How do you interpret this quote then? The OP said

it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents).

 

I interpret that to mean, "It turns out Gay parents are (in fact), better than straight parents".

So what do you even mean there is no claim gay parents are better. He basically said if you compare gay and straight parents it turns out the gay couple is better at parenting. How else can you interpret the above quote?

"Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays?" vs "gays will come and take our children"

I think there is a difference between giving something away voluntarily and having it forced upon you. That is how I interpret the separate meanings..

This OP article is ridiculous and I'm surprising you are arguing in its favour.

- Gay parents must meet stringent adoption guidelines that include background checks, criminal history, occupations, home ownership and must be convincing to the agency as potential parents.

- They are being directly compared against heterosexual parents who could very well have conceived an unwanted child in a drunken stupor after a night drinking.

Is comparing these two subsets fair? Is it fair enough to "Shock the Right Wing"? I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think it is worthy of consideration.

@ Swanson,

commentary on societal sticking points without being aware of the history

 

History is not the discussion. This survey does not give accurate results (see post 21) yet the OP is passing it off as present day fact so "shocking" that the right wing is shocked by it.

As has been said before. Gay parents have much more rigorous standards to meet in regards to Health, Occupation, Criminal Records, and so forth than is necessary for heterosexual teens to be parents after a drunken prom.

For this survey to be even a little fair they should weigh the children of adopted children of gays solely against adopted kids of straights, and even that would not be 100% fair because some bias might exist in the agencies responsible for adoptions.

@ Ten oz, and OP,

http://www.wikihow.com/Warm-Up

If you look at the first few (6) warm up exercises in that link you will see they involve stretching.

Stretching is a common warm up method on its own. I could find many better links, but that was quick.

It is like Chicken or Egg. Do you exercise first to prepare to stretch or do you stretch first to prepare to warm up.

What would the advice be to someone that wanted to exercise without stretching first?

Any form of stretching or exercise is warming up, and I would think the difference lies in the speed involved.

@ JohnC,

The OP said this,

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents).

 

Where does this author discuss averages in the slightest. Anybody that reads this could assume Gay parents are better.

So

So what was the point of that?

 

My point illustrates the OP is drawing assumptions that have nothing to do with averages.

You said,

 

Nope, it's based on two averages average straight and average gay.

 

Had the OP used your logic I would have no problem, but stated as it was it was erroneous.

I strongly suspect the context is the canard used by the anti-marriage-equality crowd as justification for denying them the right to marry and adopt.

 

@ Swansont,

Yes. That sounds like a good guess. Guessing at the point of the OP is what we are left with when trying to understand the phrase "Think of the chiildren?"

@ Phi for all,

The study clearly shows that gay parenting doesn't pose the risks many people fear it does, and you want that to mean a gay couple is coming by later to take your kids.

 

I am Pro gay marriage and designed a Gaymarriage website to help couples find Churches or government locations that provide marriage services in my Country along with procedures.

I am against anyone that issues a blanket statement declaring "gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents)" which no matter how you want to paint it is what the OP has done.

Coupling a false statement with the phrase "Think of the children" does not reveal the intent of the OP except to blur facts.

I never came close to suggesting gays will come and take our children as you are hinting at.

@ Fuzzwood,

Some people seem to overlook an important fact here. With heterosexual couples a child is relatively easy conceived to the point of it even being an accident. Homosexual couples have to go through a lot to be able to care for a child in the long run and thus had the possibility to put a lot of thought into this matter.

 

Exactly the sort of things that distort surveys like the one in OP. They are directly comparing normal parents against a group who have fought harder battles (in many cases, not all).

Best point so far in my opinion.

@ Ten Oz,

Gay marriage and Gay adoption is common most everywhere in the free world no matter what their religious beliefs are. What more can be done here?..

I think the importance lies in prevention of injury, but I'm certain stretching can be done without warm up. Many runners start their warm ups with stretching, although it becomes important after a lengthy race or your muscles can seize up.

As a popular example of ESP, I would like to list nde's (near death experiences). They constitute the unreal and irrational, yet many people testify by them

 

How could anyone testify on the experiences of someone else? Your idea of mind collapsing waves is Bohr'ish and opposite the views of Einstein so is not exactly accepted physics in our age. See Fred Alan Wolf for expanded views on your thinking, watch his idea of Double Slit on youtube.

Now however you are attempting to use science to explain your beliefs and understanding which seems like a more valid way of researching it than comparing it to religion.

@ OP,

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents). Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children.


Will somebody think of the children?!

How are we supposed to "think of the Children" as you suggest?

Are you proposing straight people give their kids to gays? Your point is not clear. Gays where I live have all these rights already so I'm not understanding the point.

I doubt any gay couple are better parents than my wife (a teacher) and myself. Your statement "Better, in fact, than straight parents" is based upon an average. Average of 500 children is not proof that gays are better than straights as parents everywhere, so your quote is fallacious.

You cannot simply put a straight set of parents in a room with a gay set of parents and claim one isbetter than the other based upon this article.

Does your "survey" represent all cultures?

I have no problem with gay parents and I believe this is becoming an accepted way of life. We even see Gay parenting shown vividly on television in shows such as "Sean saves the World, and "Modern Family". I know this is not proof of growing tolerance, but television has often reflected bigotry. Ask Bruce Lee or Nichelle Nichol who were among the first ethnic actors.

@ OP,

I think the goal of science is to understand everything, and that would involve a complete Theory of everything.

Theories of Everything have been proposed by many and I'm sure the speculations forum gets some pretty crazy Theories of everything on a regular basis.

If you were to believe in ESP then you would be hard pressed to find a "theory of Everything" including ESP that does not include religion. If one ever comes into existence I would love to hear it.

@ acme,

He asked Mods to delete the thread and his account, but I agree some of the best fiction is not reality based.

The last few movies I've seem Godzilla, Transformers, and Planet of the apes are all examples.

What proof do you have that this sense of identity should or will cease at any point in the future ?

 

He is rejecting the belief because it does not fit his logic. Proof either way does not matter. I agree both possibilities exist and neither is proven, but proof is not really required on this religion thread because it aims at belief.

This video is not about the music although I do like it,

I have found it to be one of the most visually stunning film I have ever seen.

I think many will agree this is a masterpiece of filming

There is a "What are you listenning to" thread in the Lounge, but I think it would be nice if anyone sees nice film, editing, special Effects, or just about any cute visuals they could follow here.

A Thread for beauty in films or videos, or even recommendations for it in case it is in theaters.

@ OP,

 

The Art is merely common sense.

 

Okay. Now we are getting to the heart of it.

Anybody that reads good advice will surely think it is common sense. That does not mean kings (or queens) of past (and present) had any.

You must also consider this advice is famous and is likely heard or used in other quips or idioms in similar words. It is advice we likely have heard much of our lives in some forms.

..and "Familiarity breeds contempt".

Choosing one of the quotes from my last post, do you think every general leading an army has spent time calculating the distances and range of weapons, or the timing necessary to surprise from another angle?

Not all wars are between equal powers. In any war one side always underestimates their position so the mistake is as common as war. Ask the Japanese.

FURTHERMORE...

I recently reread Sun Tzu, Art of war. The first couple of times I read it was for clarity sake, later readings, I had reduced to just acknowledging that such a book exist. Now I merely summarize the whole of the book in three (3) words

 

For a book that can be summarized in 3 words and is simply "common sense" it certainly has got hold of you.

I will admit I've read and re-read books, but only the ones I found interesting. Even if just for clarity sake it seems a bit much to keep on reading a book that has little interest to you.

The first couple of times I read it

 

indicates you may have read it a couple of times.

later readings

 

This is plural, and indicates you have read it several more times.

That is at least 4 times you have read this book.

That must be some pretty good book if you liked it enough to read 4 times, or do you habitually read and reread and reread and reread books that do not interest you or are just plain common sense. That seems rather bizarre if true.

There are other good books out there.

You give this book a bad review but by your own admission you have read and reread it at least 4 times.. I'm sorry but that is contradictory behavior even if first two times were for "clarity".

How would you classify such behavior?

@ Acme,

Without seeing the definition I was thinking

1a

1b

1c

I can see where 2 a,b,c could be considered just about anything that helps. If the definition can be that broad then saying a war can be won by outflanking is pretty correct, because it is open to interpretation.