However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 Full story: NewsCenter 25 2,351

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1081 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So children now form legislation and enforce them for themselves???
<quoted text>
You seem 'scared'...relax...no one is trying to take your daughter from you....
You seem stupid, especially when you think you speak for anyone else.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1082 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you are mistaken..married mom/dad...get it right...
Nope.

2 parents regardless of gender.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1083 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an independent group that published it....
And has since admitted the study didn't meet scientific standards and is therefore invalid.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1084 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
How do 'you' know what I represent?
By the words you post!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1085 Apr 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
2 parents regardless of gender.
NOPE, mom/dad married an in the home....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1086 Apr 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And has since admitted the study didn't meet scientific standards and is therefore invalid.
Yeah, right...I'm sure he did....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1087 Apr 5, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
By the words you post!!!
This thread isn't about abused children, so you wouldn't know what I do or do not do on their behalf...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1088 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread isn't about abused children, so you wouldn't know what I do or do not do on their behalf...
This thread ISN'T about children in general either, but that hasn't prevented you from making them part of the issue, now has it?

This thread is about the future rulings from SCOTUS and that it won't end the debate!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1089 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE, mom/dad married an in the home....
Nope, gender irrelevant.

You still haven't come up with a single valid study which refutes that.

But keep trying.

Meanwhile we'll keep getting married and raising our kids.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1090 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, right...I'm sure he did....
Google it.

30 Oct 2012- Regnerus admits study is flawed.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1092 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do...the ones that claim ss parents are the same as biological mom/dad....definitely biased....
In other words, any study that doesn't confirm your preconceptions must be biased. Yep. We get it.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1093 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep...so much proof you don't even have to think about thinking about it....it's always been there...
Actually, quite the opposite. There have always been same-sex households raising children--long before this same-sex marriage debate came about in the United States.

Why are they raising children? Perhaps because the children's biological parents died, and the gay aunts or uncles were the closest or most capable or most willing surrogates. Perhaps--as was most often the case in my experience--because the biological parents were completely unfit and gladly turned their children over to a stable household. Or perhaps because a single parent fell in love with someone of the same sex.(Think of Bird Cage.)

These couples have always done a wonderful job of raising children, although there may be exceptions just as there are among heterosexual parents.

We really don't need studies to know that gay couples often do an excellent job of rearing children. We already know it. And every rigorous study has confirmed it.

The only reason the question has been asked is people like you spewing falsehoods.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1094 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Already posted them...happy reading...p.s.'GOOGLE' is a wonderful thing...
Lying again?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1095 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
His study was 'valid'....what don't you get???
No, it was not. Even the publisher apologized for having printed the tripe.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1096 Apr 5, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, right...I'm sure he did....
Too lazy, as usual, to learn the truth. An excerpt from an article published in "The Chronicle of Higher Education":

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds

"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.

The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”

Since it was published last month, the study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” has been the subject of numerous news articles and blog posts. It has been used by opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case, and it’s been blasted by gay-rights activists as flawed and biased.

The study’s author, Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, even made the cover of The Weekly Standard. In the illustration, he is strapped to a Catherine wheel that’s being tended by masked torturers.

Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.

Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said..."

link: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...

~~~~~~~~~~

So the publishing journal's internal audit describes the Regnerus study as having "significant disqualifying problems" and was considered "bullshit" by the auditor. The journal's was deemed as having failed the the study's reviewers had conflicts of interest that should have disqualified them from the review process. Only people like you who are ignorant of proper research methodology consider this study to be of value. But then you have to latch onto flawed studies to support your views because that's essentially all that's available to you.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1097 Apr 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Too lazy, as usual, to learn the truth. An excerpt from an article published in "The Chronicle of Higher Education":
Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds
"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.
The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”
Since it was published last month, the study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” has been the subject of numerous news articles and blog posts. It has been used by opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case, and it’s been blasted by gay-rights activists as flawed and biased.
The study’s author, Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, even made the cover of The Weekly Standard. In the illustration, he is strapped to a Catherine wheel that’s being tended by masked torturers.
Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.
Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said..."
link: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...
~~~~~~~~~~
So the publishing journal's internal audit describes the Regnerus study as having "significant disqualifying problems" and was considered "bullshit" by the auditor. The journal's was deemed as having failed the the study's reviewers had conflicts of interest that should have disqualified them from the review process. Only people like you who are ignorant of proper research methodology consider this study to be of value. But then you have to latch onto flawed studies to support your views because that's essentially all that's available to you.
Again, GTF doesn't care how many articles or other sources we give her to show that the study had flaws and failed......all she cares about is that it is in line with her beliefs.

She also believes that SCOTUS is going to rule in her favor on Prop 8 and Section 3 of DOMA and if they don't she will be accusing them of being ACTIVIST JUDGES........or she will sick her God on them........lol!!!

By the way....nice to see you around again and hope all is well:-)

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1100 Apr 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, GTF doesn't care how many articles or other sources we give her to show that the study had flaws and failed......all she cares about is that it is in line with her beliefs.
I've had previous encounters with GTF and am aware of her modus operandi. She's just another dime a dozen bigot who vastly overrates her own knowledge and intelligence.
NorCal Native wrote:
She also believes that SCOTUS is going to rule in her favor on Prop 8 and Section 3 of DOMA
Hope does spring eternal for her and her ilk.:-)
NorCal Native wrote:
and if they don't she will be accusing them of being ACTIVIST JUDGES........or she will sick her God on them........lol!!!
GTF, like many uneducated bigots, has never learned judicial review is one of the functions of the judiciary branch.
NorCal Native wrote:
By the way....nice to see you around again and hope all is well:-)
Thanks! Good to see you again too.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1101 Apr 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had previous encounters with GTF and am aware of her modus operandi. She's just another dime a dozen bigot who vastly overrates her own knowledge and intelligence.
<quoted text>
Hope does spring eternal for her and her ilk.:-)
<quoted text>
GTF, like many uneducated bigots, has never learned judicial review is one of the functions of the judiciary branch.
<quoted text>
Thanks! Good to see you again too.
Personally, I don't interact with that poster much.......I have better things to do with my time......lol!!!

I'll drop you an e-mail later:-)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1103 Apr 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Too lazy, as usual, to learn the truth. An excerpt from an article published in "The Chronicle of Higher Education":
Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds
"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.
The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”
Since it was published last month, the study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” has been the subject of numerous news articles and blog posts. It has been used by opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case, and it’s been blasted by gay-rights activists as flawed and biased.
The study’s author, Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, even made the cover of The Weekly Standard. In the illustration, he is strapped to a Catherine wheel that’s being tended by masked torturers.
Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.
Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise:“It’s bullshit,” he said..."
link: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...
~~~~~~~~~~
So the publishing journal's internal audit describes the Regnerus study as having "significant disqualifying problems" and was considered "bullshit" by the auditor. The journal's was deemed as having failed the the study's reviewers had conflicts of interest that should have disqualified them from the review process. Only people like you who are ignorant of proper research methodology consider this study to be of value. But then you have to latch onto flawed studies to support your views because that's essentially all that's available to you.
It's fairly obvious that GTF is a clueless, uneducated bigot. The entertaining part is that she doesn't mind looking like a complete dunce.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#1104 Apr 6, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Your pickup lines are getting better but still need a lot of work if you re hoping to get a boyfriend. At least now you're attempting to be flattering. You haven't quite got the ang of flattery yet but it's clear you're trying.
Once you've figured out he to deliver a worthy pickup line, the next step for you is to visit actual dating sites or gay bars. You're still obviously confusing Topix with those places.
The thing is, the guy I call Fido, in this case he's using the name "Wallace" claims I am a guy, then tries to use, "You've got a big dick" as an insult...who knows what he will try next? "You're rich and handsome!"?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The New Southwest Airlines Has A Heart Logo And... Thu Deegco 2
Former Detroit high school football star arraig... Thu Al Bundy 5
What is the most reliable engine ever made? (Aug '08) Thu Kilo 189
All Your Automakers Are Belong To GM: General M... (Feb '07) Sep 17 David Cheever 22
What do you know about Kia cars ? Sep 16 roadmatecar 1
OBD2Repair WIFI GM MDI Tech 3 wireless gm mdi s... Sep 16 obd2repair 1
SOLUTIONS MANUAL: Numerical Methods Using Matla... Sep 16 mark 1

Buy a New Car


Zipcode:
•••

Autos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••