NBVegita

The only flaw in your logic sever is that things can have strong evidence can be wrong, so thus it makes you stupid to be right? So being there is no scientific proof that there aren't a more than a hundred, possibly a couple hundred(theoretically) planets in the solar systems of the universe, are we stupid to believe that there are actually thousands? Being there is no published scientific proof that there is inteligent life on planets outside of our own, does that make it stupid to believe that there is life on other planets in other systems? Case in point for ages there was strong belief that the world was flat. And there was strong evidence to support that. Yet a lot of philosophers theorized that the earth was round, with little evidence to support that theory, and ironically they were right. !@#$%^&* look at the majority of things we now know as true, and centuries to millenia ago people were told that " a truth which is supported by no evidence at all (or very little evidence) requires stupidity." In fact most scientific breakthroughs follow a belief or theory based on little to no evidence. If it weren't for hundreds of people with beliefs based off of little to no evidence we wouldn't have any advances, or near the technology we have today. The very idea is dogmatic in itself.

Thats the point, if you throw an 8 year old girl in front of the chronicles of Narnia, do you really think she's going to grasp the hidden meanings behind it? People are paranoid.

I reiterate its all about the parents. If your kids think they can't succede, then they can't. If you don't work hard, they won't. Even if you have a !@#$%^&*ty job, but bust your !@#$%^&* at it, that creates a work ethic. The work ethic in todays lower class is: "the less I do the more the government pays" It makes me sick. And jet the only reason why that statistic is true is because it goes hand in hand with the statistic the lower class is more lethargic and less motivated than the middle and upper classes. You can try to argue all you want that its hard to be movitated to work a minimum wage job and barely get by, but any job that is giving you food for yourself and or children, a roof over your head, and clothes on your back, no matter how good or bad, is worth being motivated for. I'm sick of people making excuses for the unmotivated, lethargic slugs of america.

lol seriously its supposed to be a witty ploy concerning common sayings. And yes it is a !@#$%^&* old joke.

I was referring to Bak, You make a sound argument simply based on the fact that none of any sources I can find anywhere show heterosexual vs homosexual adoptions. But then in contrast I would say that it is better to stay with your birth parents, based on your theory, thus making it better for the child to be in a natural heterosexual environment.

Then I blame the parents for not inspiring their children. If children aren't inspired by their parents, a brand new facility, or a nice book, or all the things money can buy won't help.

Hoch, well put in your last post.

lol? The only case you could present would be against GAY adoption, not adoption in general. lol? The PDF, posted on Marriage watch is a copy of a report written by two non-biased scientists. Simply because a report is posted on a religious site does not make it religious. I suggest you actually read those articles where in some of them it implicitly states that heterosexual parents are better for children. I'll just requote myself for one instance: Why ask me to post sources if you don't bother to read them.

There are currently about 300,000 eligable kids for adoption, and over 1.5 million heterosexual couples trying to adopt right now. Our adoption system is so stingent that well adjusted and financially stable couples are adopting from other countries because its the only way they can get a child without having to wait years for it.

"Most "gay parenting" studies compare children in lesbian households with children in heterosexual, single-mother households. The only major study1 to directly compare children raised in married, single-parent and same-sex households was published by the journal Children Australia, and it revealed that, "Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples." " "Thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you are doing to protect children from being placed in homosexual households. I spent part of my teenage years living with my mother and her female lover. It was a heartbreaking and disturbing experience to say the least. The needs of the children MUST be placed before the desires of adults. Throughout my life, the most well-balanced and successful people I encounter come from healthy, loving, traditional families. I wish I did too!" I mean I could keep quoting every article I posted. But that is why I posted them, so you can read them. There is no conclusive evidence, I have admitted that, but there is evidence that supports my claim. So until you can disprove my claims and or my sources you cannot say I am wrong. Ironically being there is not conclusive evidence, you cannot do so, so this argument is over until conclusive evidence can be presented.

All governments are run that way. It's just that our government allows the people to question more, and find out more. This is of course another clevery disguised social security scare. Economists have been crying that social security is going to dry up in X (insert number under 10) years since the 70's. Not that I'm expecting it by the time I retire. Either way I wouldn't have been surprised if that report said we were actually over 10 trillion in debt.

The PDF was not religious, and the pdf discounts many of the studies that show that homosexuals make just as good parents. As I stated you will find sources on both sides, but as the evidence is inconclusive on either side, the fact that I stated "Being there have been studies showing that both a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development" I have supported my statement, with studies, and thus have done my part to support my argument. Also if you discount studies by religious organizations, then I would say you must discount studies by pro-gay organizations for the same reasons.

Now this is where I disagree. I grew up in the hood too. I've also had this argument multiple times with astro. I'd like you to try and point out how coming from a poor neighborhood, and a poor school hurts your chances? And I'd really like to know how being a "minority" hurts your chances, because I was a minority at my school. Where I went to school, the break down was 56% Black, and 44% other. Out of that other, just under 20% where white. We didn't have enough books, and the ones we had were held together with tape. Sometimes you'd have to share a locker with 4 or 5 kids because half of them didn't work. Everyday to get into school you had to empty your pockets, walk through a metal detector, have them check through every pocket of your bag, then once you where through, they would manually wand you.I mean I could really just keep going on and on. And out of our top 15, me and the valedictorian were the only two white males. The only major problem with the schools today, is that you cannot hold a student back. So no matter how bad they do, they can make it to high school (at least!) without knowing anything. The major issue isn't the schools, its the parents and families of these kids. You could buy the nicest books money can buy, get dozens of guest speakers to come in, take visits to sit in on college lectures, pay for the AP exams, have a brand new state of the art school built. Yet you can't force these kids to read these nice new books. You can't force these kids to sit in those brand new chairs. You can't force them to listen to the lectures of the most knowledgeable people in the world. !@#$%^&* the only reason why I have a bachelors from Syracuse University is through a program they exclusively offered to poor schools.

My biggest concern is the fact, as it is listed in some of the articles I posted, that some, not all, children have tougher childhoods because they are either ashamed or antagonized for having gay parents. I've never once said that they would be maladjusted criminals. The fact that they are more likely to have a homosexual experiment is not necessarily bad, but its not good either. As for astro, just google county discrimination laws, and go through page by page by page. I'll not flood the forum with thousandss of links to all of the thousands of counties discrimination laws.

Astro: "If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county, or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place." Being that 17 states, and almost every county I can google shows up with those laws, it covers just about all gays. Bak: http://www.afajournal.org/2006/june/0606marriage.html http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=...tegoryid=family http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Arc..._update_408.htm There will constantly be studies that prove and disprove, in fact there is a huge study that disproves a lot of the homosexual studies: http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

Maybe I should have chosen a different profession.

Most of college is common sense, just when you get into labs and project work that take up a ton of time.

Maybe I should have gone to college in canada...

Yet if you are anything besides a white male, you get all the aid in the world to go to college. Falcon made a very good post. And as for Europe, Advanced math a discouraged subject in the UK after the age of 16, I believe, in public schools. The believe it is too tough of a subject on the students. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6588695.stm Every education system has its flaws. It's no coincidence that 346 of the 746 richest people in the world are Americans. Coming from a poor family I experienced the opposite of that. I've found that its easier for the poor to get rich than it is for the middle class to get rich.

!@#$%^&* back when I was in college if you took 15 credit hours, you spent more than 15 hours a week just inside a classroom, not including the studying/work requested out of class and labs. And I do believe it is a federal standard that to be considered a full time student a minimum of 12 credit hours per semester is required. Maybe JDS really is Bill Gates...

I think we should do a special on LOSA for CNN, its not everyday a young adult makes almost 5 times the national average in salary for a job that usually requires 5+ years of experience. !@#$%^&* even the top 10% of people in your profession don't earn half of what you make. Specially being the average full time college student puts in between 40- a week into school, can be up to 120 for architechture students. So say 60 hours for school (average), and 58 for work you don't even sleep 8 hours a night. You would definately make the front page.

Her job wouldn't be boring, as its likely one of the jobs that evolves the most. You will constantly have new projects, people and opportunity. I feel that the problem with the new generation. It's been projected by the time the new generation is 28, they will have held over 8 jobs. I'd rather stay with a company for 30 years, retire in my early 50's with my fat pension, great 401k and be able to consult, if/when I want for the rest of my life. If you constantly change jobs you better hope on good investments, and you'll be working for a lot longer.

Astro...homosexuals are protected in the work place. Notice how in big bold print it is stated that you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation. In fact there have been many law suits for that. You can't force co-workers to respond the same to homosexuals, just as you can't force people to react the same to women. Racism and sexism are not religious based. As for adoption, if an agency doesn't see fit they don't have to place a child. Being there have been studies showing that both a male and female presence in the home is greatly beneficial to a child's development, of course its going to be difficult for them to adopt kids. As for laws against it, I guess it's no less cons!@#$%^&*utional than banning people from being able to own guns. Not saying that I support it, but there will always be something infringing on someones rights.

Now the question is how many hours do you work? With the rate you quoted, it you worked even 30 hours a week, !@#$%^&*uming that 5 of those are over time, you'd make over 100k a year. You could pay for princeton, out of pocket without a cent of aid, have a $200,000 house, drive a Benz and not worry about being short on money. So if in fact your numbers are true, and at 19 you're making 100k a year already, take my advice and quit school, as with your profession the more experience = better pay, and just do that for the rest of your life, as you already make over 3 times the national average for your posistion. If you invest your money well you'll be a millionaire in under a decade.