<p>Mezzo’sMama in #17, you were quite right to call out “Buddy”.</p>
<p>Has anyone noticed a disturbing tendency on the Parent Cafe recently of posting threads, or commenting on threads, that appear to give information or raise awareness, but are actually veiled conservative opinioneering on a social issue in the news?</p>
<p>To wit:
– Buddy on this thread linking to the National Review website (and views about gay marriage, a separate issue from this thread).
– bulletandpima on thread titled: “Embryo emplanted in wrong woman”, the OP’s original link was to a conservative hate site (one of their main contributers is one Ann Coulter) which bills itself “The Premier Conservative Site on the Net”. OP averred that he/she linked to that because it was the only text-based write-up, yet I had no trouble linking to the original London Times material…</p>
<p>Discussions of gay marriage (soon to be on the ballot in my state) and universal health-care belong in the political forum, and yet some posters on CC insist on posting emotional fear-mongering under the guise of something else. You really have to be vigilant and on your toes. It reminds me of those telemarketers that call you and openly lie about their intentions for the call (the gop does that too).</p>
<p>Another excellent question might be why CC allows links to conservative sites like National Review and “Free Republic”, and modds out sites like huffington post…</p>
If you carefully read what the article said (“gay men make up somewhere around 1% of the total population”), he’s manipulating the numbers. Adult males are only 1/3 of the total US population. If 4% of men are gay, then “about 1%” of everyone is a gay male. You could also say that adult male evangelicals are about 8% of the total US population, but it wouldn’t be a useful measurement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t referring to Sailer’s conservative bias, unless it’s conservative for him to say that black people “posses poorer native judgment”.</p>
<p>The article just invokes old stereotypes, some of which are not based on any evidence. Anyone who knows a gay couple can tell you that Sailer is wrong. His predictions about the validity of homosexual marriages were incorrect, if Massachusetts’ divorce rate is any indication.</p>
<p>“As for the bisexual high school girl epidemic (and I use that term tongue in cheek) my experience is that few of these girls are interested sexually in their girlfriends but instead are trying to get a rise out of the boys by catering to the boys’ conceptions about lesbians and the male fixation of two women at the same time.”</p>
<p>I wasn’t referring to high schoolers…I was talking about middle schoolers, many as young as 12 years old, who seem to think it’s “cool” to “come out,” whether or not they really are gay or bisexual. I think that this is partly due to the widespread lauding of gay and bisexual behavior on television, especially on shows like Tila Tequila, which promote not only bisexuality, but also promiscuity. I am not judging this one way or the other, just sharing my daughter’s experiences.</p>
<p>There certainly isn’t a majority of Conservatives on this forum, Annuddah. </p>
<p>Perhaps those links are being missed, as opposed to removed because this is a minimally moderated forum. If you have an issue with any link, feel free to use that “Report post” button that appears in every post. It is your right to ask that they be pulled down. Or you can just mention it after an objectionable post, and remind your fellow posters about those rules.</p>
<p>I have seen many links to the other side, and haven’t reported them, because I am capable of looking at both sides and coming to an objective viewpoint and it doesn’t phase me, in the least. Unless it is truly offensive, I won’t waste the mods time. </p>
<p>But it is a TOS violation to link blogs and you tubes. </p>
<p>What gets me about your post, however, is the implication that these posts in the Parents Cafe must be placed here because of some right wing conspiracy. Or that they must imply some sort of agenda. Can’t a conversation about things that involve our children be just about that? Our filter may come from a different place, but not EVERYTHING we say is political.</p>
<p>I saw that spectacle a few days ago along the lines of <em>cough Zoosermom cough</em>. Remember that? You implied in that post that a poster rallied the troops to support the political cause. Kind of silly, really. We tend to migrate from thread to thread, from college to political forum, to parents cafe. Some of us stay in just one genre, if you will. Some of us even support people’s opinions of <em>gasp</em> “the other party”. </p>
<p>Not everything is political, or intended to be that way, around these parts. Sorry if that you think that. :(</p>
<p>“The article just invokes old stereotypes, some of which are not based on any evidence.”</p>
<p>Many stereotypes are based on evidence. Possibly anecdotal evidence, possibly statistical evidence, but evidence nonetheless. And which (because you limit your statement by saying “some”) are and which are not based on evidence?</p>
<p>“Anyone who knows a gay couple can tell you that Sailer is wrong.”</p>
<p>Why? Because every gay couple is like the gay couple you know?</p>
<p>“His predictions about the validity of homosexual marriages were incorrect, if Massachusetts’ divorce rate is any indication.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t that presume that the Massachusetts divorce rate is an appropriate measure for the question posed? Is it possible that the marriages you speak of are more likely (or less likely) to be “open marriages”? There are many variables here and such a short time in the laboratory that little can be gleaned from that statistic.</p>
<hr>
<p>“I wasn’t referring to Sailer’s conservative bias, unless it’s conservative for him to say that black people “posses poorer native judgment”.”</p>
<p>Thinking about “wise Latina women” right now.</p>
<hr>
<p>“Just because homosexuals enter a bathroom together doesn’t mean they’ll engage in sexual activity.”</p>
<p>I’ve read the OP’s link to the Times article. And as a whole, I find it heartwarming and a positive step in an area where we are still in need of progress. (Just in case anyone is taking my other remarks as not supportive of a group of children who need and deserve our support.)</p>
<p>I wasn’t referring to high schoolers…I was talking about middle schoolers, many as young as 12 years old, who seem to think it’s “cool” to “come out,” whether or not they really are gay or bisexual.</p>
<p>That in itself does not bother me. Part of discovering who you are is trying out different roles. I don’t think it is appropriate for intimate relationships to be begun in middle school, but " pretending" to have a girl/boy friend is a great place to begin a dialogue about what that means and rights and responsibilities connected with that.</p>
<p>I would much prefer that middle schoolers think it is OK to identify as something that is a normal part of how humans develop, rather than think it is not OK.</p>
Based on evidence: gay men disproportionately have AIDS
Not based on evidence: pretty much everything else he said</p>
<p>
I know several gay couples, and some of them are married. I suppose it’s possible that by some coincidence none of them are “normal” gay people. Maybe the description in the article is accurate. When I’m not looking, they’re crying about how the person they married isn’t masculine enough. Therefore, they go have sex with other gay men, who also aren’t masculine. That makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know any other data that samples the divorce rate of gay marriages?</p>
<p>
This isn’t some gaffe. He believes that Black and Hispanic people are genetically inferior, and writes about it a lot. That’s his main issue. I don’t have any love for Sotomayor, and I’m not sure what posting that quote was supposed to accomplish.
“Hey, this person, who is a liberal, since you are attacking a conservative, said something that sounds racist.”</p>
<p>How was this NR article was relevant to the discussion in the first place?</p>
<p>My Sotomayor quote was intended to demonstrate that it’s not just Sailer who expresses race-based thoughts. And I’m curious (don’t answer, I’ll do my own research - don’t want to thread-jack) as to whether Sailer’s writings are “genetically” or “culturally” based. </p>
<p>How was the NR article relevant? I guess you’d have to ask the poster but I’m guessing that it is responsive to the promiscuity question on which he/she was challenged. The article supported his/her position. And anecdotally on that subject, judging by what goes on at our high school, I can’t imagine that the homosexual students are more promiscuous than the heterosexual students; it would be impossible for someone to have that much energy.</p>
<p>As the parent of a son who is gay, I assure you that the only unique challenge I face is that my son lacks the same rights as other people’s sons. We have the same clear answers for our son that we’d have for him if he were straight:</p>
<p>-Sex education is a lifelong process. No question is off limits. The basis for it lies in self respect and respect for ones partner. Age appropriate books go on the family and child’s private bookshelf as the years go by, with a brief intro by either parent and encouragement to speak to us. </p>
<p>-No dating until 15. Before that, outings in groups only.</p>
<p>-The bedroom door stays open. When you pay your own rent, you may open and close your bedroom door whenever you want too. </p>
<p>-I would be shocked if any of my children had sex in the bathroom in high school. I’d prefer to believe they would never do such a thing, but my experiences in college and beyond showed it might happen. (Note to anyone who thinks only gay couples have sex in bathrooms: Hang out in a few dance clubs and bars that cater mainly to straight, drunk people and then get back to me.)</p>
<p>Sorry, I’ve never quite mastered the knack of encasing a quote in the darger, off-set box-but I must respond to speihei’s comment re. Sailer and the article in the NR :
“his NRO article seems well-conceived and logical”
Spare me, please, his article is full of “facts” with no basis in fact and personal opinions. I have no problem with an “editorial”, but making declarations and expecting people to accept them as gospel is an excercise in Narcissistic behavior.If it’s an opinion, say so and have done with it.
And I never once said that I discount anything written in a conservative publication, but I do respect intelligence and have no regard whatsover for anything written by a narrow-minded bigot who feeds his/her own ego by hurting others.
I didn’t know that these forums were to be used as a bully-pulpit for the promulgation of bigotry and if it’s narrow minded to expect the author of a piece to back up his words with fact, then I’ll own that, and gladly. However I find it offensive to be accused of discounting anything written in a conservative publication- you know nothing about me,speihei, and making sweeping generalizations make you look narrow-minded and petty.</p>
<p>I remember you from the gun-crazy thread, you know, the one where a bunch of people were breathing heavily and talking about how they “like the feel of the gun” in their hands? </p>
<p>Anyway. This is about young kids feeling safe with their sexuality, and hey, I am all for that. “Certain groups” try to scare the benoonoos out of people by saying “THEY want to teach about gay marriage to KIDS!”, up here in the land of the frozen chosen it’s on people’s minds right now, but you know what? I want kids to learn about gay marriage, and same-sex relationships, so that young gay kids are okay with themselves.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, Annudah. I read through that whole thread, and I didn’t get that same impression that you did. “Heavy breathing”? “Feel of the gun in hand”? Hmm. </p>
<p>You are certainly right to think anything, or say anything. Just as we all, are. I got the impression that you felt that because a parent made posts in the parents cafe, that it was part of some agenda, and that they didn’t have the right to post there. And then I believe you went on to discredit those posters, because of your opinions. </p>
<p>Perhaps my impression was wrong. Just as I think your impression on the gun thread was wrong. So be it. </p>
<p>Just in case you are wondering, as a resident of CA, I voted for the right of gays to marry in the last election. Just as I would vote to retain gun rights.</p>
<p>I’m of two minds on this. I do think a person has (at least!) a very good idea of his/her orientation by twelve, but I’m not a big fan of boyfriend/girlfriend anything at that age. I didn’t even let my kids “group date” until about 14. I’ll tell you one thing, though, even in the ten years from my oldest to my youngest, the kids have become a lot more aware of sexuality and relationships. I’m not really sure that’s a good thing. I do, however, think it would be a very good thing for a person’s orientation to just be and be accepted without the agony that’s been such a part of coming out. Perhaps that’s a pipe dream, but as you all know, this is an issue that I’m very passionate about.</p>
<p>Just my opinion, but I think it’s great that so many people are in agreement about acceptance of all kids whatever their orientation. It will be a good day in this country when kids stop saying “That’s so gay” in school, I guess adults have to set the tone.</p>
<p>(@zoosermom, #35, actually I don’t really care, I just think it’s funny. When people “mistakenly” post links supporting a position on a ‘hot button’ issue that send you to conservative blogs, I just kind of shake my head in fascination. I mean, if I linked to a site that calls itself “The Premier Conservative Site on the Net”, that gives you a primer on shouting at Town Halls and ‘Tea Bag’ events, I would totally know what that is. I guess I assume that people know what they’re looking at, but maybe not. I guess people have varying degrees of discernment. Thanks for the reminder!)</p>
Yes they do. Some aren’t actually threatened by words or views that are different from our own. We can research, read, and become informed all by ourselves. Sometimes we change our minds, and sometimes we learn things that we never knew. Cool, right? Information isn’t scary. It’s ok, really, it’s not!</p>
