bfh

Rhino:

You are presenting an argument regarding the decay of the "traditional family unit"

and using Ms. Whitehead's article as a source to back-up said argument.

I am merely questioning the credibility of the source you quoted (see your post #206, 209),

along with the material and references she presents. In fact, in post #206 you refer to the source material as "evidence".

As such, the onus is on you to insure that you have a credible source; it is not up to me.

He quotes many different researchers and names them ... I guess we are used to links though.

Almost every paragraph names a researcher and quotes them or paraphrases them.

It looks very fact based to me.

The article that you referenced in a previous post, "Dan Quayle Was Right",

was written by a She not a He. Her name is Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

The article was written in 1993 and the survey that she uses from the

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is from 1998, a full 20 years ago.

I'm just curious, do you have anything more recent?

How many years did the NCHS survey encompass? Did it span the entirety of Generation Y,

which is dated from 1983 to 1997? And if it did, how is the next generation, Generation Z, faring?

Ms. Whitehead quite deftly uses the anonymous social scientific evidence ploy when she says,

"according to a growing body of social-scientific evidence" and then goes on to state her position as if it were a given.

But what I'd like to know is, what specific social-scientific evidence is she referencing? Has the research and written documentation of said

research been done by a reputable institution? Were the articles peer reviewed? Who paid for the research?

Who paid Ms. Whitehead to write the article "Dan Quayle Was Right"?

And last but not least, what are Ms. Whitehead's bona fides?

I am always skeptical of generalizations and anonymous sources. The cigarette companies paid

for research that said smoking caused no health problems whatsoever, and that wasn't exactly factual.

One thing that I keep in mind when I read fact filled articles is this: Statistics can be made to support any position whatsoever.

Stats are, by far and away, the easiest thing to spin.

And let me add....

Congrats on your auditor certification!

Well Done

Break on ThroughThe Doors

Beautiful Day - U2

Thanks for posting this Kit; it's wonderfully inspiring.

In his commencement speech, Pausch lists questions that if answered honestly

provide insight and clear direction for a life well-lived.

An incisive perspective and one to which we could all aspire.

And, with a twist of humor, his conversion was to buy a Mac! :)

Dooj, that's The Band playing "Up on Cripple Creek"

it's that song by the gambler, well... his previous life... JDITSWCMCWI

(if I'm correct, someone else can take it)

A rather cryptic response, but correct nonetheless.

Free Post up for grabs!!!!

I've been mulling this over for a couple of days, and I don't even have a WAG.

Could you post another hint, please?

Would this be translated from Italian?

badge, cream?

That be it.

Your turn...

Correct.

*checks*

I thought it was the doorknob, not the dormouse. I should have looked it up

before posting, like I normally do.

Yeah, I also try to check the lyrics before posting and sometimes I find myself thinking - Oh, so that's what they are saying.......

New Tune:

I tripped on a cloud and fell-a eight miles high

I tore my mind on a jagged sky

New Song:

Thinkin' bout the times you drove in my car

"Baby you'll come knocking on my front door"

I'm pretty sure it's by Stevie Nicks & Tom Petty.

And the title is..."Stop Dragging my Heart Around"??

I think it's dormouse not doorknob, and refers to the dormouse

in Alice in Wonderland, who, by the way, never said, "Feed your head."

"White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane

*shakes aluminum foil into a microphone*

"Riders On the Storm",

by the Doors.

Correct!

You're up, WW....

Wild Hogs

William H. Macy

Fargo

Sock a little poke sallet to me, you know I need me a mess of it! :)

New Tune:

There's a killer on the road

His brain is squirmin' like a toad

I used to think the name of this song was Poke Sally Annie -

Then I saw it written and thought Oh...

It's Polk Salad Annie...well at least I got the Annie part right.

But hey, give it a listen and see what you think Tony Joe White is saying:

BTW, I love his voice!

Sounds like Evil Ways------Santana

???

Sounds right!

Your turn...

New Tune:

You've got me running and hiding

All over town.

They did fine ... without their parents being designated as a married couple. So there is no harm.

Alright Rhino! So you finally admit that children raised by gay couples suffer no harm.

IF this really were the case [the regular practice of infanticide], then all of those species listed would be extinct...

and clearly, there are no cases in the animal world where same sex animals mate and raise offspring...

that's because homosexuality is against nature...

jen-o:

It's not an either/or - it's an and. A regular practice of infanticide does not connote the extinction of a species.

I don't believe I used the word ALL. For instance, if a cat has a litter of 5 kittens and kills 2 of them, there are still 3 left.

And, yes, I have witnessed this with my very own eyes.

Well, it seems as if homosexuality is not against nature as so many would like to believe:

Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species.

Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species,

sexual arousal from objects or places, sex apparently via duress or coercion,

copulation with dead animals, homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual sexual behaviour,

and situational sexual behaviour and a range of other practices among animals other than humans.

Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals.

The study of animal sexuality (and primate sexuality especially) is a rapidly developing field.

It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other

than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to

the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that many species that

were formerly believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic

in nature; a wide range of species appear both to masturbate and to use objects as tools to help them do so;

in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim;

and homosexual behavior has now been observed among 1,500 species and in 500 of those it is well documented.

From Wikepedia - "Animal Sexual Behavior"

Of course, why would we want to bother with science?

WhiteDove:

The English language has changed amazingly over the years. Go read some Chaucer if you don't believe me.

English has the largest vocabulary of any language ever. We have incorporated words into English from

Latin, Gallic, French, Spanish, and from the Vikings, to name a few.

English is a highly fluid, flexible, and dynamic language. Ask any linguist or any English Lit major, for that matter.

And amazingly, we English speakers still manage to communicate.

they have the potential to be parents IF they use heterosexual people's children... (or perhaps if they use a "donor" or sperm bank... which in that case (as rhino has already pointed out) they have already created a "broken home" by definition...

we definitely are changing our society by redefining basic words like "marriage" and "parenting"...

But, may I remind you, that heterosexuals also avail themselves of sperm banks and paid surrogates in ever increasing numbers.

And now, due to this practice by heterosexuals, we have an ethical and moral dilemma with regards to frozen embryos.

However, no one seems to question the right of heterosexuals to engage in these practices,

so why should it be any different for homosexuals.

So, by your reasoning, the heterosexuals that avail themselves of these services "have already created a 'broken home' by definition".

If it's a bad practice, then let's focus on the practice itself and not the sexual orientation of the participants.

And just out of curiosity, how are we redefining marriage and parenting. Could you give me the definition of marriage and parenting and then the redefinition of both words? I'm just wondering how they are defined so differently with this California ruling.