Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 08:45:26 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Adream
 <1992Apr15.221009.19991@wam.umd.edu> <92106.193654QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr16.035041.27689@wam.umd.edu>

In article <1992Apr16.035041.27689@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo
Pinkas) says:
>
>In article <92106.193654QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:

>I do not see why I am responsible for the flaming.

You're part of the flaming, face it.

>>
>>You started out by being opposed to gay/lesbian couples raising
>>children - when presented with sample evidence that children in
>>existing gay/lesbian parented families are every bit as well
>>adjusted (perhaps more so), you still didn't let up.  (The
>>articles are long since gone, or I'd quote you)
>
>I do not believe 100% on that evidence.

Well, Excuuuuuuuuuse me!  Just what is going to convince you?  If
you would pull your head out of those old crusty books and listen
to what various people say here, maybe you'd learn a thing or two.

>>
>>Then you started in with this psychoanalytic stuff, citing tons
>>of "references" to "support" your arguments - you got flamed for
>>that as well.
>
>I cited the references because someone asked for them. Otherwise, I would
>have never cited them. I just give an opinion, not a scientific, researched
>opinion based in facts.

The second sentence says it all.  But - you try to present this
"research" as fact, and you wonder why you get flamed?

>Actually, when this al started, I just said: I feel that this is not OK
>(About shearing kids).

I don't think it's ok to chop up kids either (ick)... oooooh, you
mean SHARING kids.... nevermind! (sorry, couldn't resist) :)

I didn't see anything in the various posts about "sharing" kids.

>Again and again the same thing.
>I listen to what Gay people say, and I disagree. I might be wrong. I never
>said that I have the truth in my hands. I give an opinion based in what I
>know. Period.

It's obvious that you don't know anything then - can't you admit
that you're ignorant on the subject of homosexuality?   I'd be
curious WHY you "disagree" without you digging out old books
of "research" written by similarly clueless people...

>>In summary, Alberto, when you walk a mile in a gay person's shoes,
>>you come back and tell us how it went.  You're soo good at tossing
>>out "research", and this, and that, but you haven't experienced
>>what others are telling you - try that for a change.
>
>I guess that would be hard for me to try it. Anyway, to be is not the same
>as to know.
>Of course, I am not saying that I know.

Alberto, this is CLEARLY obvious (that you don't know).  As for your
"to be is not the same as to know" line, that is a flame baiting,
holier than thou attitude.

It continues to amaze me how dumb some straight folks are.  Alberto,
you have to open your eyes to learn something.  None of us are
experts (ok, well I'm not, I won't speak for anyone else), but
you've repeatedly been told the same things by a variety of
people, but you insist on clinging to crusty books, written by
rotting "experts"... sheesh, why do I bother...

-Tim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality