Originally Posted by TerciopeladoCaballo View Post
Here I am.
Can't expect me to be online every day, that would be derogatory.
I was being analytical of the learning/parenting process. Doesn't matter to me where the articles come from as long as the tests are legit; on such political issues, at least in my personal experience, I can't find thorough articles that are not related somehow to a religious group (including atheists/agnostics) or a political group. The article itself that portrays the data is limited to public view, this was the only site I could find that had a large portion of the studies online. That was my attempt to be fair; I was a bit hopeful of people to ignore any external factors.
So for being picky about people being raised by other people; now, I do not mean to discriminate strictly based on ethnic groups, but it is seen worldwide that people of the same culture or religion will gather together. Putting aside any thought of conspiracy, I would think this is a large factor in why you can see, essentially in early American history, groups of people from the same nationality forming their own towns inside a larger group. America is interesting (I am Austrian-Irish) as it shows a kind of diversity, yet separation at the same time, as you will travel throughout some parts of a state and find neighborhoods with Cherokes living close to each other, Italians living close to each other, so on so forth, though all will identify as Americans. Still, my point is that people of close biological traits tend to relate easily and soothed in the company of their groups. Interestingly, there is no 'race gene' that says "You are Italian," but there are traits that will occur frequently in certain places of the globe, which is majorly just natural selection over time.
I mean to say that birds of a feather flock together, colts learn to snake mares by watching stallions, and mares learn to mother by watching other mares; advanced needs are less complicated that way. For example, a woman of major Egyptian descent looks quite different than a woman of Norwegian descent. Giving to people's inclination to consider encounters at face value strictly, a person of Japanese descent won't know the difference between a man or woman of the bloodlines--- if you look only at the face of many different people worldwide, it can be difficult to figure out the gender and age. To a person outside those bloodlines, all they can go by is the person's word of mouth to identify their age, gender, and nationality when they have not seen people of those categories. So, now nobody really knows what a man or woman looks like, and clothes aren't much of a help as outfits vary widely.
The ability to identify our own members of the same species is detoriating--- and when you think about it, our ability to recognize subtle facial expressions and vocal intonations is as well thanks to electronic communications. I don't quite see such an appeal on announcing yourself to strictly relate romantically to one gender, or rather, the traits of that gender, because you do have masculine women of all orientations and the reverse as well. I don't think it's the gender that people are focusing on deeply, but the traits they believe are associated (for example, five gays I have met over the course of three months only engaged in relationships with men with at least three obvious traits in common such as face shape and body build). That there is an observation, though, nothing to really go off solely, as you do have preferences, but on several occassions when I introduced a gay friend to women with broad shoulders, he stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women instead. I can say of that, at a minimum, he was pleased with their bodily appearance.
So with parenting, I would want parents to raise a child in a widespread education. Of course in the situation of a child being dragged through a murky broken home or being re-homed to a person with a steady job and lifestyle who happens to be homo, the child goes to the homosexual. No group is immune from the same problems. If there's a person of sound mind, go ahead, I just wouldn't put a child from a broken home in a household where the parents are biased, whatever their lifestyle and belief is. Anybody who has had a shelter Pit Bull from a dogfighting past knows that the dog does not go to someone who will only pour love and kisses on it. Love and kisses do not keep the dog from ripping apart living beings, it is hard for me to hear someone say "as long as you love me/him/her/them," because you can love someone with all your heart, but being with you might not be best for that person. It takes more than love to raise a child, dog, cat, horse, et cetera. There are plenty of situations where people are in poverty trying to care for their children. If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better. Then there are the times where mothers have thrown their children off cliffs and dove in with them to avoid the shame of surrendering to the enemy nation, but, that's the darker side of this point.
I skimmed the reply posts a bit, they don't look too nasty, I didn't catch anyone gnawing on each other's throats. Strong topic = strong emotions.
Speed; spectacular debacle. I haven't heard "psychobabble" in a while, not since Wedding Crashers. I can't tell exactly what you were remarking on, whether it was my meaning or my word choice.
Well, I'll take a tiny step. You are helping me with analyzing practice, thank you, though I wanted to stay on topic.
There is more than one definition of "bitter"; I meant "unpleasant to reception". That's a matter of tone and diction; you were so serious, I believed you could choose another theme of diction. I apologize for this mistake, it's hard to decipher meanings from colloquialisms. Usually it is appropriate to gently state an opinion of a hot topic. It is also appropriate to slap a smiley face on the end of it when using the internet, for lack of a face.
Sadly you did not prove me wrong. I praise you for paragraph spacings though, your generous sharing of commas and verbals were customary but relevant to your own points. More of a descriptive anecdote and a bit of explanation to the use of harsh words such as "hate" would improve the structure. Overall it was skeletal, I suggest to weigh future remarks with irrefutable claims and citations next time.
No offense intended, but I always get a chuckle when someone that authors a post like yours criticizes someone else's structure, syntax, and punctuation. If I could spare the lengthy time it would take to edit your post, the result would be more red than black. We write in informal conversational style here, which is appropriate for this venue...it is also much easier to read then a failed bush league attempt to appear educated...again - no offense intended...