- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipcan you explain what you mean by 'endorse'?
What seems to be getting lost in this argument is which should be promoted ?
1.) Exception situations
2.) Typical time honored situations.
[b]Some smokers live longer than people who do not smoke.
Should then the givernment endorse and promote smoking because of this ?[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgewhat about the icky factor, you look up for mommy and there is two dudes looking down at you, yikes! its gonna blow the poor kids mind.
Objecting to the promotion of gay parents [and we are not talking about
promotion of, but acceptance of] requires that there is something wrong
with gay parents.
This has not been demonstrated.
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipWhy are you trying to pretend that the only issue brought up against the American College of Pediatricians is its small size? The fact is that there was more being said about the ACP and it seems more than a bit underhanded of you to have responded as if it were otherwise.In fact, the American College of Pediatricians is a tiny group of doctors who broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 because the latter group supported LGBT parental rights. The American College of Pediatricians, believed to now have about 200 members,
I saw your objection the first time. I take it with a very big c ...[text shortened]... edible ? I don't dismiss them merely because of a maverick attitude to a larger body of opinion.
The following was also a part of the article and was included in my post:
The group [American College of Pediatricians] Perkins cited as authoritative has come under repeated attack by real scientific authorities. After it published Facts About Youth last spring, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association described the booklet as non-factual. Several individual researchers — including Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health — said the handbook misrepresented their findings.“It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” Collins wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.”
So several researchers, including the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that a booklet published by the American College of Pediatricians MISREPRESENTED THEIR FINDING and both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association described the booklet as "non-factual".
Following is Collin's statement in its entirety from the NIH website:
Statement from NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in Response to the American College of Pediatricians
April 15, 2010
"It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents."
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm
The following was from Dr Gary Remafedi from the University of Minnesota Medical School had the following to say about the ACP and how they misrepresented his findings:
"What was so troubling was that these were fellow doctors, fellow pediatricians," Remafedi says. "They knew better, and they have the same ethical responsibilities to their patients that I do, but they deliberately distorted my research for malicious purposes."...
"It's obvious that they didn't even read my research," Remafedi says. "I mean, they spelled my name wrong every time they cited it."
http://web.archive.org/web/20100907222204/http://www.citypages.com/2010-05-26/news/university-of-minnesota-professor-s-research-hijacked/
In case you need it spelled out to you, what especially makes the ACP disreputable is that it has been misrepresenting the research of others in its attempt to further its agenda. But then, maybe you don't have a problem with that.
6 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI want to hear some other staticians' numbers and analysis besides the ones you would refer me to.
Why are you trying to pretend that the only issue brought up against the American College of Pediatricians is its small size? The fact is that there was more being said about the ACP and it seems more than a bit underhanded of you to have responded as if it were otherwise.
The following was also a part of the article and was included in my post:
[q ...[text shortened]... others in its attempt to further its agenda. But then, maybe you don't have a problem with that.
Where is your sense of being munipulated with propaganda when in
in 1988, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown,
Virginia, to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted
by the general public ?
In the book that resulted from their meeting,
they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect “without reference to
facts, logic or proof . . . the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he
is conscious of the attack or not.”
These activists laid out their strategy was pure propaganda. Your apologetics has demonstrated much of their propaganda has been effective.
So many posters here argue that to denying same-sex
marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority.
This book was by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (New York: Penguin, 1989), The reference was found on pages 152-153 as I am informed. I have not read the book for myself.
Where is your sense of outrage when a propaganda campaigned is mapped out by Homosexual activists to engineer public opinion?
One reader reviews the book "The Overhauling of Straight America"
Before I write, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "In 1987 Kirk partnered with Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill" ) to write an essay, The Overhauling of Straight America, which was published in Guide Magazine. They argued that gays must portray themselves in a positive way to straight America, and that the main aim of making homosexuality acceptable could be achieved by getting Americans "to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders". Then "your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won"[my bolding]
Their opinion engineering has been hugely effective with some people like yourself. Maybe all of us do not want to just shrug our shoulders at homosexual marriages.
There is nothing stopping two homosexual lovers from committing to each other for life. That's been done for years. Now the issue is they want validation by means of government backed "marriages". Nothing is stopping homosexuals from pledging themselves to one another in private same-sex marriage ceremonies.
People may carry on many kinds of behavior in a kind of underground way. When you crave to be viewed as everyone else you map out propaganda to desensitize the consciences of the majority.
I don't think most homosexuals want to get married or stay married.
The recent insistence upon government recognition of same-sex marriage is mostly their strategy to win them what they really want—validation and normalization.
Same-sex marriage are sought to furnish the homosexual activists with
validatation and normalization throughout society.
Ie. "Now we are backed by the government and you have to view homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality."
What the human conscience will not sanction they will get judges and the government to back. The homosexual lovers no longer want to be behaving underground.
The key point here is they are fighting for “government-backed” marriages. Homosexuals can already “marry” one another privately. There is just no government provision for it. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from pledging themselves to one another.
Where is your concern for "a special interest group" then ?
Originally posted by sonshipNo riposte is required to this post, you have condemned yourself with your own words.
Where is your sense of being munipulated with propaganda when in
in 1988, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown,
Virginia, to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted
by the general public ?
......................................
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipwow talk about mindless drones sucking up every wave of propaganda in the shifting sands of social conscience.
I want to hear some other staticians' numbers and analysis besides the ones you would refer me to.
Where is your sense of being munipulated with propaganda when in
in 1988, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown,
Virginia, to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted
by the general public ?
[quote] In the book that r ...[text shortened]... ng themselves to one another.
Where is your concern for "a special interest group" then ?
I myself knew there were deliberate attempts to change societies perceptions but i never assumed it was quite as devious nor as deliberate.
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Hardly he has vindicated his stance admirably in that the propaganda that you yourself are now espousing has been the consequence of a deliberate and quite devious manipulation of perceptions and attitudes evidenced by the regurgitated views of the members of this forum as if mindless drones, with neither will nor requisite of their own
No riposte is required to this post, you have condemned yourself with your own words.
don't you feel used?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it's apparent that you and sonship are genuinely insane.
Hardly he has vindicated his stance admirably in that the propaganda that you yourself are now espousing has been the consequence of a deliberate and quite devious manipulation of perceptions and attitudes evidenced by the regurgitated views of the members of this forum as if mindless drones, with neither will nor requisite of their own
don't you feel used?
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think its apparent that you and the atheistic hordes have been assimilated! You Borgs! Is googleborg the Borg queen? You have no minds of your own, you have a collective consciousness! resistance is futile! you will be assimilated! I see me and jaywill as Jedi Knights, upholders of all that it just and noble.
I think it's apparent that you and sonship are genuinely insane.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis proves my point.
I think its apparent that you and the atheistic hordes have been assimilated! You Borgs! Is googleborg the Borg queen? You have no minds of your own, you have a collective consciousness! resistance is futile! you will be assimilated! I see me and jaywill as Jedi Knights, upholders of all that it just and noble.
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou think? How will you explain that you are all reading from the same cook book? When in fact, no book apparently exists? How will you explain that you have all the same angle? the same perspective, yet have never met? I know why I and Jay have similar morality but what about you?
This proves my point.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's really quite simple, we don't believe that people should be discriminated on the basis of their sexuality.
You think? How will you explain that you are all reading from the same cook book? When in fact, no book apparently exists? How will you explain that you have all the same angle? the same perspective, yet have never met? I know why I and Jay have similar morality but what about you?