As has been mentioned elsewhere, “Funky Winkerbean” is dealing with the hazards of selling comics in an increasingly reactionary world. Interested parties are invited to check out the beginning of the storyline here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20050303
Idiots are invited to suggest the strip is due entirely to me being alarmist.
PAD
• 
Jim, just out of curiosity, how much of this research has been sponsored by conversative, religious organizations? The reason that I ask is that most of the literature that I’ve read suggests that children prosper when they have supportive adult figures in their lives that allow them to feel safe and secure in their world. Unbiased research tends to begin with a focus on disproving a hypothesis, not confirming one. The research that you are speaking of sounds like the stuff that is inevitably traced back to people with an agenda. Do you have any links or article references?
Fred,
Unfortunately, I have not kept the original articles. Some are definitely from religious and/or conservative sources, but others are from papers like the Dallas Morning News. Some are from more liberal sources. I realize not all research has come to the same conclusion. In some cases, the bias (on either side) has tainted the conclusion. But I have yet to read any research that found, on average, that a kid thrived better with supportive adults who were not his or her parents than those who did have supportive parents. The most that could be said is that there was no difference.
In regards to children prospering if they have supportive adult figures, I believe that is true. The question is they prosper even more if those suportive adult figures are their biological parents. My understanding is that, on average, they go.
Using an anaology is always a risk, but I will try one: A car can run on more than one kind of fuel. But it tends to run best on the fuel it was designed to use. I would expect a kid to thrive if he or she had supportive adult figures. I would expect a kid to thrive even more if there was one of each gender since they have to live and cope in a world with both genders. I would also expect that the kids would normally thrive the best if those supportive adults were the parents.
Having spent a lot of time with children and youth both in the community and in my church, I have seen this happen over and over. I am not in any way downgrading the help or importance of outside supportive adults. What I am doing is highlighting the unique and crucial role that the biological parents can and should play in the life of their child.
Iowa Jim
Jim, the question your point on the average indication of a stable, good upbringing for children begs the question of why we should strive for the average? We’ve had discussions before, and I’ve seen you acknowledge, here and before, that individual homes that fit the “normal” mold can result in a harmful environment for a child, and that homes that don’t fit the standard can result in productive, safe, positive environments for a child.
There are two different issues at stake.
First, as public policy, what is the most desirable place for a child? I am not saying we should just strive for the average, but rather saying that a stable home with both parents is far better whenever possible. No, we can’t force the issue. But we can create an expectation and hold up what is the healthier standard.
Second, you have to deal with reality in specific circumstances. Take a family where the parents are constantly fighting, even though they try to be loving to the child. One option is for them to divorce. The better option, I believe, is for them to work out their problems and stay together, not just “for the sake of the child” until the child is out of the house, but because it is the right thing to do. Again, I would not force a parent to do this, and there are some cases so abusive that separation or divorce is necessary, but there are a large number of cases where it is simple selfishness on the part of one or both parents that leads to the divorce.
Iowa Jim
Jim, I think we’ve had this exact discussion before, and I think we’re on the same page, just saying it differently. There’s a lot more playing into the situation when you bring up divorce. I agree with you in that no-fault divorce, and the commonality of it, has increased the divorce rate, and resulted in more marraiges that should never have been. When you know you can get out with relatively little pain, you won’t stop and consider the huge step and changes marraige brings about.
Of course striving for the ideal is what everyone would hope for, so defending that position is no real stretch. I think where we differ is that I’m not set on an average ideal, whereas you are.
the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
Wow, being gay is now a choice!
That should clear up any dispute as to the validity of your statements, Powell.
boy, how did this go from Funky Winkerbean to talking about politics & family values. God, I love this website.
example:
TOPIC
Who’s better, Hulk or Superman?
person 1
* hulk
person 2
* superman
person 3
* republicans suck
person 2
* no way, democrats suck more
person 4
* no way person 2, you suck and you are stupid.
bladestar
* BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, I HAVE HATE & CONTEMPT FOR EVERYONE WHO IS NOT ME
person 5
* hulk is better. and democrats suck
person 6
* republicans eat their young
person 1
* democrats abort their young
person 7
* republicans want to stop progress
person 1
* do not
PETER DAVID
* this is my board & if i say bush sucks, then he sucks. Read my stuff.
person 2
* pad, you have no right to yor opinion & i’m not going to read your stuff anymore
person 8
* i’m writing joe quesada to fire your butt
person 9
* republicans burn the rainforest & club baby seals
person 10
* democrats save the whales, hug a tree & kill the unborn
bladestar
* BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, YOU’RE ALL FÙÇKÍNG FÙÇKS AND I HATE YOU ALL!!! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
peter david
* joe quesada just emailed me and told me to tell you to suck his dìçk and leave him alone, he’s to busy working on DD: Father #2 which is a year late and he can’t concentrate everytime you bìŧçh about me to him. Also Brian Bendis is writing all marvel titles now except Hulk, which he is co writing. quesada also said that dc sucks because they are a republican company. make mine marvel.
person 10
* both parties suck.
person 11
* i’m a liberal republican
person 12
* i’m a conservative democrat
person 3
* democrats are trying to save the world
peter david
* joe quesada emailed me to tell you that bendis is also now writing hulk full time. thats it, didio & quesada will die. does anyone have mark allesis’ phone #?
person 1
* God loves you
person 3
* there is no god, fool.
person 13
* there are many gods
person 14
* education in this country is going to hëll.
(persons 1-13 & PAD all agree. bladestar goes off on another rant)
Luigi Novi asks people to privide where they get their facts from before telling them they’re wrong
person 6
* fox news rocks.
person 13
* whatch cnn you conservative drone
person 15
* i think superman is better.
person 7
* cnn & michael mooore is all that everyone needs to stay informed
person 16
according to cbr, buckley has replace quesada as eic of marvel. it looks like brian bendis will be the new eic. according to sources bendis will stil write all the titles.
person 17
* bush is the antichrist
person 2
* no clinton is
person 16
* another update, avi arad names bendis publisher, eic, head writer of marvel enterprises.
person 18
* republicans
person 19
* democrats
person 16
* according to wizard, marvel is to make bendis the founder of marvel. stan lee quoted as saying “WHAT THE FÙÇK?” wizard also reports that bendis will take over spiderman/ black cat & daredevil bullseye from kevin smith. quesada is rumored to be dan diddio’s chouffer & john byrne’s head finally exploded.
person 13
* what was the topic again?
joe v.
BUmmer, Joe V. I feel like all I need to do is read your post once a week now, and aside from release notes posted by PAD, I’m all caught up…
Chadzilla:
“When did you make the decision to be straight?”
There is no decision to be “straight.” You are born with a set of genitalia, and that’s that. I don’t deny my aesthetic sensibilities of recognizing physical beauty in persons of my own gender. But I don’t mistake it for sexual attraction, either.
Chadzilla:
“I think I’ll let you take on hate mongering dickwads like this loser by yourself. I have a son to raise and steer clear of sick minded individuals such as PP.”
Pointing out that social ills often force people into bad life decisions is “sick minded” and “hate mongering?” Wow. I hope you’ve expunged your all abusive tension with that outburst and don’t take it out on your son.
Fred Chamberlain:
“These factors and hard stats are certainly not infallible, but speak volumes more to me of identifiable patterns than throwaway spouting of people with an already identified agenda against homosexuals.”
I don’t know how we got onto pedophilia, but yeah, the gender of the victim has very little to do with that partiular sickness. But I have an “agenda against homosexuals?” Yeah, okay. That would explain why I’m listening to the new Judas Priest album right now. And why I memorized the entire Rocky Horror Picture Show. I don’t have a problem with gay people. What I have a proble with is granting people special privileges for no valid reason.
Fred Chamberlain:
“I have a difficult time believing that you know this as fact and are not drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs.”
Every example on that list (even the learning disability one) is drawn from an actual person or persons that I have known. No, I don’t don’t expect you to believe me. Also, pretty sad that you assume I am affiliated with any religious bias. I’m Agnostic.
Craig J. Ries:
“Wow, being gay is now a choice!
That should clear up any dispute as to the validity of your statements, Powell.”
There still has been no credible evidence presented to suggest that persons are “born gay.” Still waiting, though.
There still has been no credible evidence presented to suggest that persons are “born gay.” Still waiting, though.
I suggest you open your eyes.
There’s LOTS of credible evidence. None of it is definitive, of course, because that’s not how science works, but there’s quite a bit of evidence that can be pieced together.
Had my “eyes open” for about 25 years years on the subject. Have yet to see anything even remotely believable.
Freud covered it pretty well in the 50’s. Though I would expand his definition of “frail” to include physchological status as well as physical.
“I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s “witch hunts” know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.”
jeeze, every time I hear that mentioned I think of _ComicBook: The Movie_
Is that evidence empirical and repeatable, Roger?????
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Fred,
Did you imply that studies by conservative Christians are inherantly flawed, but studies by people such as yourself aren’t? Just wondering.
Joe V.
Haven’t laughed that hard in a long time. Thanks.
“What I have a proble with is granting people special privileges for no valid reason.”
What special privileges? What right(s) are gays seeking that you & I, as straight people, don’t have?
Explain how allowing gays to marry the same as we can is a ‘special privilege’.
A car can run on more than one kind of fuel. But it tends to run best on the fuel it was designed to use.
Ah, there’s that lovely word “designed” again.
Design implies a designer. If marriage was “designed” by society, then society can change it without threat to the institution.
So unless you’re claiming a designer other than society (and “tradition”), the analogy tends to fall down — and if you ARE claiming a more overarching designer, then this is nothing other than a religious argument in another form.
Boy, this is sounding familiar. Weren’t we here a few days ago?
TWL
Weren’t we here a few days ago?
Yep. And I’m sure we’ll be there again soon.
Michael Brunner:
“Explain how allowing gays to marry the same as we can is a ‘special privilege’.”
Anything that requires a license in this country
Uh, Powell, old son, could you give examples of what specific or class of learning disability predisposes an individual to homosexuality?
Funky Winkerbean is still being published???!!!!!
* sorry ’bout that. just felt like bringing Funky back into this thread.
Some groups are pushing to write a new definition that will tolerate some deviation from history
Well, then I say we need to write old definitions into our laws: polygamy, for starters.
It’s been legal in history, it’s legal some places still now. So why not here?
I did not say that a learning disability predisposes a person to homosexuality. I said that I knew of one specific person who chose a homosexual lifestyle as a result of a learning disability. I do not know that her story is unique, but I presume it is not.
Craig J. Ries:
“Well, then I say we need to write old definitions into our laws: polygamy, for starters.”
Again, push the Reductio Ad Absurdum button and see what the Republican neo-cons do. You want a bunch of right-wing Constitutional amendments, just keep it up.
So unless you’re claiming a designer other than society (and “tradition”), the analogy tends to fall down — and if you ARE claiming a more overarching designer, then this is nothing other than a religious argument in another form.
Man, I knew using an analogy would get me into trouble!
It was not my intention to imply that God designed marriage. As a Christian, of course, that is my belief. But that is not even close to my point.
Let me put it this way. A bird has wings and is thus able to fly. Whether I believe it was designed that way, or you believe it naturally evolved, the fact is, that is the natural function of wings.
I am suggesting that the natural function of marriage, wherever and whenever it was conceived, was for the purpose of serving as the place to start and raise a family.
Of course, IF God does exist, and things were designed, then it really makes sense.
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my “ignorance” I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Iowa Jim
Powell, you said (after a list of circumstances that included learning disabilities),
“The prevalence of these circumstances don’t just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.”
Sounds like you see it as a predisposing factor to me.
Well, then for clarity’s sake I shuld have edited out the word “these.” There are many other unfortunate circumstances that lead people to bad decisions, I’m sure.
Man, I knew using an analogy would get me into trouble!
Yep — and unfortunately, your explanation doesn’t really get you out of the conundrum. The phrase “natural purpose” doesn’t really help, because it basically begs the question “purpose as said by whom?”
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my “ignorance” I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Indeed — and it’s a line of inquiry I suggest you not pursue, unless it’s truly a line of inquiry and not an attempt to argue for creationism.
Fred (and others) have deferred to your greater knowledge of the historical Bible, given that you’ve done extensive graduate-level research into it.
Well, my wife is a Ph.D. evolutionary biologist.
That doesn’t make her automatically right, of course, but it certainly gives me (through her) the same right to be taken seriously as you had in the Bible discussion.
Now, if this is a serious inquiry, let me know and I’ll be happy to provide some explanations (and links, if I can find good ones). If not, I’d leave the sidebars out.
TWL
Aw, crud. I thought I’d changed that back.
Sorry, all — the message just above from “William Shatner” is actually me.
TWL
On a side note: Interesting how life has every indication it was designed, especially when you get into the enormous amount of information stored at the cellular level. Forgive me if in my “ignorance” I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.
Yes, you do. I think you’re speaking out of your specialty here, as those who are more knowledgable would disagree with every point you’ve made here. A word to the wise?
in reply to: Posted by Powell Pugh at March 8, 2005 04:58 PM
You explained why gays are not currently allowed to marry, but you didn’t answer my question. Let me try again:
If you & I, as straight people, have the priviledge to marry, then why is it that if gays want the SAME priviledge, it’s a ‘special priviledge’?
By calling it a ‘special priviledge’, there is the implication that they want to do something that we can’t.
no
yes
good
evil
gay
hetero
democrat
republican
conservative
liberal
elvis people
beatle people
marvel people
dc people
x men suck
x men rule
quit arguing. no one is changing anybodies opinion. why do you guys do this to yourselves? arguing the same points over & over & over since i’ve been visiting this blog for the last 2 years. i notice the exact same people have the exact same opinions.
peter is a liberal democrat who hates GWB & quite possibly the entire republican party. He’s against censorship of any kind. he is pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro social wellfare for all. he’s not a bad person, those are just his beliefs. he’s also an incredible and talented writer who i will always read & support.
tim lynch, roger tang, craig ries, fred chambelain, robert jung, michael brunner, mitch evans follow the same train of thought as peter, and that’s ok.
on the flipside from what i’ve seen over the past 2 years, we have me, jerome maida, jim in iowa, robbnn & a few others i forget to mention are quite conservative, and that’s ok also.
…and then there is bladestar (sigh)
but in the last few years none of the people on the 1st list nor the people on the 2nd list have changed opinions. so what is the point of arguing.
Joe V.
according to wizard, Brian Bendis is set to take over the UN. in an interview he was quoted “this is just my next step in universal conquest. read my books.” The vatican also stated that Bendis will succeed John Paull II as the next pope. Bendis commented “Happy Hanukkah, mother fûçkërš!”
Joe Quesada responded “what have i done? i created a monster.”
“Forgive me if in my “ignorance” I am left to wonder how complex informational structures could have been assembled by random chance since there was not life to allow natural selection to choose it in the first place. But I digress.”
Like Tim says, it’s a whole nother ball of wax, but consider–is it some kind of miracle that all those water molecules keep assembling by random chance into the shape of snowflakes? I is if you think that snowflakes are formed by billions of water molecules randomly sticking together.
Obviously, the process is not random. So might it be with life. yeah, the odds of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and other atoms randomly joining up into DNA is pretty slim but you muct consider the possibility that the chemical components of life might form naturally.
Now, if this is a serious inquiry, let me know and I’ll be happy to provide some explanations (and links, if I can find good ones). If not, I’d leave the sidebars out.
Actually, it is something I am very interested in. If you are willing to trade a few emails on it, I would appreciate that. My degree is definitely not in this area, but I have read very extensively from a variety of perspectives, so I am not completely shooting from the hip.
My question comes from watching a video of a scientist who believed in evolution but who is now looking at intelligence design because of the evidence. I will look up his name as I am sure your wife would know who he is. But since this is WAY off topic, I would rather do this by email.
Iowa Jim
I said that I knew of one specific person who chose a homosexual lifestyle as a result of a learning disability
Lemme guess – the disability was that they didn’t find god?
Ok, that’s probably a low blow in light of a serious problem, but I don’t think Jimmy the Stutterer is coming out of the closet on the account of his speech problem.
You want a bunch of right-wing Constitutional amendments, just keep it up.
Oh, now we resort to threats. Or is it just insinuations?
Ever since we found out Saddam was behind 9/11, I just can’t keep that stuff straight anymore.
So the newest update to the funky story is only two panels long. Forget that the strip isn’t funny, now he’s just being lazy.
Craig J. Ries:
“Lemme guess – the disability was that they didn’t find god?”
*SIGH* I am not a Christian. I am not a spiritualist. You’d be better served to stop making assumptions about the character of people you merely have disagreements with.
Not that you deserve an answer, but here’s the Cliff’s Notes version:
The girl in question led a withdrawn childhood after being diagnosed with ADD. Her parents were very sheltering and didn’t mind that she not only never developed a social or sexual identity during her teen years, she had no interest in doing so. I worked with her when she was 20-21, attempting college. Her first experience with sexuality was a group of predatory lesbians that she shared an apartment with (it was cheaper than the dorms). I spoke with her many times about how she didn’t like many of the things they did and how they hurt her emotionally, but they were the first “friends” she’d ever known. She failed out of college (twice) and moved around a lot, always sharing an apartment with a lesbian and/or a transvestite, before finally going back to live with her parents in another state. Yet despite all her negative experiences, she still considered herself a lesbian.
Interpret however you want. Because I know you will.
Craig J. Ries:
“Oh, now we resort to threats.”
Not a threat. Not on my part, anyway. Schwarzenegger is the one making the threats with his “Meet me at the polls” crap. I offer a mere warning. I don’t want these right-wing nutjobs fiddling with the Constitution, either. Especially not over such a miniscule non-issue as gay marriage.
Powell:
>>”I have a difficult time believing that you know this as fact and are not drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs.”
Every example on that list (even the learning disability one) is drawn from an actual person or persons that I have known. No, I don’t don’t expect you to believe me. Also, pretty sad that you assume I am affiliated with any religious bias. I’m Agnostic.
You are making a leap hetre. I suggested that you are “drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs.” I didn’t suggest that you were affiliated with any particular group, only that you are basing your conclusions based on belief, rather than a significant number of individuals. I don’t know you and don’t pretend to, but I’ve known, both personally and in a professional capacity, scores of homosexuals that don’t fit into your descriptions of homosexuals nor did they blossom into their homosexuality based on the origins that you have described.
Fred
Robbnn:
>Fred, Did you imply that studies by conservative Christians are inherantly flawed, but studies by people such as yourself aren’t? Just wondering.
Nope. I have little interest in actually performing research. I’m more of a clinical, hands-on guy. My point wasn’t that the studies mentioned are flawed, though many of these studies are set up and funded by groups looking for specific connections. Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that if you go out to look for a connection, you will find one. Stats are manipulated all of the time.
Though there may be some out there, I’ve yet to review any research funded/sponsored by a conservative Christian group that was not flawed due to this fact. If someone wants to direct me to some, I’d gladly tread it with interest. For now, I’m more inclined to go with statistics and research that was funded by psychological associations, medical groups or the government.
Fred
Powell:
>I did not say that a learning disability predisposes a person to homosexuality. I said that I knew of one specific person who chose a homosexual lifestyle as a result of a learning disability. I do not know that her story is unique, but I presume it is not.
Again, not knowing the specifics of this situation, I can at least speak to the many gorup home situations and agencies that I worked at in my younger years. I saw much homosexual behavior while employed at these institutions. Most of these people were the most desperate kind of lonely that I can imagine. Any kind of human interaction was welcomed. They functioned at a lower cognitive capacity, being mentally handicapped, had had little interaction with people outside of their small circle of housemates, etc. In these instances, I saw homosexual behavior, not homosexuals behaving.
Regardless, this scenerio can’t be compared with the larger issue of homosexuality or homosexual rights.
Fred
IowaJim posted:
“Let me put it this way. A bird has wings and is thus able to fly. Whether I believe it was designed that way, or you believe it naturally evolved, the fact is, that is the natural function of wings.
I am suggesting that the natural function of marriage, wherever and whenever it was conceived, was for the purpose of serving as the place to start and raise a family.”
Okay, Jim, you are familiar with ostriches and penguins, are you not? Both are types of birds and both have wings. Neither type uses their wings for flight (ostriches and their relatives-emus and rheas–aren’t capable of flight due largely to their size and bone composition; penguins, like the extinct and winged but flightless dodo, developed in relative isolation in which they had no landborne predators which made flight a necessity).
Why then do they have wings if those wings aren’t used for flight? Just because wings may have a “natural function” doesn’t mean they’re used for that function.
Marriage is not a NATURAL function. It’s a SOCIETAL invention. And, as such, has developed a number of variations which served society over the centuries. Currently, marriage does not fulfill the same societal need or function that it did in centuries past. (It should also be remembered that the Bible doesn’t speak to the issue of *marriage* and its form. The early Christian church even acknowledges that marriage should be a last resort, to reaffirm that people who couldn’t control their “baser” lusts should use marriage as the outlet for them, but a TRUE Christian should not need such an outlet.)
Today, the overwhelming number cases of censorship against comics (Jesus Castillo, the Atlanta case) have been initiated by conservatives.
Just a minor clarification from a 12-year customer at the store in question (who worked part-time for them at a different location once upon a time)–
Indications in Jesus’ case tended to point to the obscenity charges being the mask behind which the real initiation point – a so-called “soccer mom” being upset at the prices of Japanese import Pokemon packs and secondary-market single cards when all stores in the area were sold out of “regular” Pokemon packs – hid.
While I agree that the charges and resulting case bear all the earmarks of an archetypal conservative action, I still tend to think that the ideology of those involved have much less to do with the case than simple petty vengeance.
1.) Given enough time, molecules could combine in a way to give rise to life spontaneously. That’s the part you seem to ignore. Life arose millions of years ago (creationism aside), but how many millions and billions of years preceded that event? Once arisen, life (I assume) began evolving immediately else we wouldn’t be arguing this. You know…..give a monkey enough pens and enough time and it’ll write the Gettysburg Address or some such…..
2.) Marriage is not only a societal construct, it is a WORD. Folks, we’re arguing about the stupid definition of a WORD. It’s a WORD for goodness sake! Who cares if Gays or Straights share the WORD? Hey, instead of “marriage” I vote that we change the WORD to “shmageggie”. Then we can all argue about Gay Shmageggie! It makes about as much sense.
3.) Joe V. is hilarious. Joe K. (me) not so much. (sigh)
Posted by Joe Krolik at March 8, 2005 11:51 PM
1.) Given enough time, molecules could combine in a way to give rise to life spontaneously. That’s the part you seem to ignore. Life arose millions of years ago (creationism aside), but how many millions and billions of years preceded that event? Once arisen, life (I assume) began evolving immediately else we wouldn’t be arguing this.
The problem that a lot of people have with the concepts you’re talking about is that they look at the process backward — “Wow, it’s so unikely that blind chance could produce the One True Form of humanity”, rather than realising that, if we had evolved as winged, quadrupedal herbivorous reptiles, they’d be thinking the same thing (and decrying the thought that gwrfls like us could possibly be descended from skrfl lizards).
Seeing the whole process narrowing to a point (us) from a broad origin (random chemical reactions) is to miss the point.
Not to try to be a jerk or anything Fred, but it seems to me that if, as you say, you’ve worked in group homes, many of the people you’ve dealt with over the years have been developmentally challenged, abused and such. A certain percentage of them would be homosexual, or simply display “homosexual behaviors” openly, due to being socially maladjusted. In this case, your perception of the root causes of homosexuality would seem to be statistically skewed, particularly since there’s a very good chance that there are any number of other people you know who are gay, but you just don’t know it. Or not. I simply have no way of knowing, but in my case, operating purely from personal observation and experience, the gay people I know (as well as their children) are some of the MOST well balanced people I know.
Then again, I’ve kinda skimmed to get caught up, so if I misread or misinterpreted any statements, forgive me. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Rex:
>Not to try to be a jerk or anything Fred, but it seems to me that if, as you say, you’ve worked in group homes, many of the people you’ve dealt with over the years have been developmentally challenged, abused and such. A certain percentage of them would be homosexual, or simply display “homosexual behaviors” openly, due to being socially maladjusted. In this case, your perception of the root causes of homosexuality would seem to be statistically skewed, particularly since there’s a very good chance that there are any number of other people you know who are gay, but you just don’t know it. Or not. I simply have no way of knowing, but in my case, operating purely from personal observation and experience, the gay people I know (as well as their children) are some of the MOST well balanced people I know.
Rex, you’re not being a jerk, but also have not read my other posts either apparently. I had previosuly spoken of both my personal and clinical experience with individuals who happen to be homosexual. I also stated that one of the most giving and beautiful (dare I say “clean”) people that I havever known was gay. The only people I spoke of in the post you refer to were mentally handicapped. While a few of them had been abused, most had not. I also stated pretty clearly that they were committing homosexual acts, not homosexuals per say.
Fred
Joe V., not that I’m pretending to speak for PAD, but I don’t think it’s accurate to state that he’s pro abortion. From his comments, I’d say he’s against federal regulation of abortion, but personally finds it a poor choice. I guess that would make him pro choice, which is not the same thing as pro abortion, even though the so-called pro-life group would apply that label.
Penguins use their wings, just not for flight through the air. They use them for propulsion through the water, which shares many of the same physical properties used for flying. Flightless birds could be seen as being at a mid-point of evolution. A species that in the past needed flight, whether for escape/surivival or food procurement, but no longer has that need. So the wings are vestigal, much as the hind limbs on whales are.
There’s nothing imcompatible with intelligent design and evolution. Maybe I can create a new term, designed evolution. God/the Creator/ V’Ger/WHATever set it all in motion, and everything that’s followed since has been part of that design.
While I agree that the charges and resulting case bear all the earmarks of an archetypal conservative action, I still tend to think that the ideology of those involved have much less to do with the case than simple petty vengeance.
Maybe not with the mom who made the initial complaint, but the prosecutors and judges who threw the book at Jesus Castillo were working from an ideological-driven standpoint.
(It should also be remembered that the Bible doesn’t speak to the issue of *marriage* and its form. The early Christian church even acknowledges that marriage should be a last resort, to reaffirm that people who couldn’t control their “baser” lusts should use marriage as the outlet for them, but a TRUE Christian should not need such an outlet.)
*Sigh*
Let me just put it this way: I would disagree with your interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Marriage is not a last resort and it is not true that a “TRUE” Christian could control him or her self and not need to marry.
Concerning birds and wings, that is the problem with using an analogy. There are always ways to make it say something different than the original intent. I will quit trying to use an analogy since it is a lost cause!
Iowa Jim
Actually, Jim, I think your use of wings is very apt. I don’t know that I’d agree that marriage today is designed around the raising of children, but certainly for some that is exactly what it is.
The wings anaology works because it reflects how a system (wings) can adapt and evolve over time to meet the needs of the entity using the system. Just as wings evolved from other limbs to adapt as needed, flightless birds adapt them to other uses, or see them dwindle away to non-use as their needs delcare.
So has marriage evolved. From wherever it’s origins occurred, a large section of today’s society sees it as a family bonding unit, often geared to the creation and raising of children. That’s not to say that there isn’t some evolutionary relative of the same institution that is something different.
So has marriage evolved. From wherever it’s origins occurred, a large section of today’s society sees it as a family bonding unit, often geared to the creation and raising of children. That’s not to say that there isn’t some evolutionary relative of the same institution that is something different.
I KNEW my analogy would get me into trouble! 🙂
Back to the drawing board.
Iowa Jim
So with all this talk of “intelligent design” and the origins of homosexuality…does that mean if you believe in the former that the”designer” created the latter?
And to bring the topic back to the strip…Today we see John calling his lawyer as he is moved to the police car. I am interested to see what charges are brought against him. Tom Batiuk is doing a very good job of advancing the story incrementally.
So lost in the shuffle but…
It’s not like Liberals have ever been guilty of any acts of censorship, have they Dr. Dolittle? How do you feel about it, Sambo?