From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims.
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:07:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92349.180552MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Well, Paul, you are right I do tend to skim articles and perhaps I did
>miss the piece where you were not citing a source you had actual experience
>with.  However, your reading is not so hot either as I am an Asst prof
>not an Assoc.  But I thank you for the promotion.

Touche!  But you deserve an explination.  See I figured that since 
the current political atmosphere is what it is, well then in keeping
with the new spirit of bi-partisanship, upon seeing that you're a female
I determined you were obviously qualified for a promotion so despite my
objections to AA I figure; what the heck promote her 8^)

>  Here's the deal.  In life, if you cite sources you are unfamiliar with
>you can get burned real bad.  If you write a paper for anyone with the
>level of proof you gave, you would not get a passing grade.  See, those

Here's the real deal.  In life, most people don't give a rats ass about
studies, statistics, or the research findings that universities churn out
with their tax dollars.  Rarely if ever, do people form opinions about 
such things as whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children,
based on what the result of some research done by god knows who.
In such matters I expect that personal experience, and bias carry a
whole heck of alot more weight than any study we could find and I suspect
that the reason is pretty simple.   Studies like these never say: NO
risk what so ever, never ever.  They say things like: no significant risk
or inconclusive as to the amount of risk to the child.  Most people I 
know aren't willing to count even one child's life as an acceptable cost 
to satisfy the agenda of any politcal group.

Study all you want, but none of the results wil carry the impact of a single
newspaper story about a gay couple sodomizing the kid they adopted. 

>job of nurturing her daughter.  But being gay didn't cause this.  My
>guess is that if her mother was straight their relationship would also
>be tense.  It would just center around other issues.  I also hope that
>your sig other can come to some peace with all this.  

It seems to me that you're confusing two seperate issues.  Yes her
relationship with he mother is somewhat strained and might very well 
no matter what her mother's oreintation is.  That, however, is a seperate
issue from the deep rooted dislike of gays in general.  I don't need to
study anything to know that her memories of the gay friends, and their
behavior, her mother had is the primary cause of that problem.  And for the
record the behavior she tells of has nothing to do with sexual misconduct.

She has quite different ideas of how men and women should behave, formed
on her own and despite the best attempts of her mother to quash them, and
the years of forced association with - light in the loafers men and women
who tattoed themselves, dressed like men and swore like drunken sailors -
went along way to setting her prejudices in stone.  The public displays
of affection did little to ease her discomfort with the situation and 
their insistance that she was somehow abnormal for having a problem 
with their behavior was the cincher.

Todays problems with her mother mostly stem from the fact that she 
continues to maintain relationships with many of these friends (the mom) 
and my wife refuses to allow any association between our children and
them.  And frankly, having met some of these people, I'm not terribly
disposed to disagree. 

PSG 
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton