Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156273 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Brave to cling to the myth that being homosexual is in and of itself a form of mental illness, despite more than a decade's worth of empirical evidence that it wasn't? Yeah, right.
There's no "decade's worth of empirical evidence.

If there was you'd be able to link to it.

You're just engaging in LGBT rhetoric.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156274 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
There's no "decade's worth of empirical evidence.
If there was you'd be able to link to it.
You're just engaging in LGBT rhetoric.
To the contrary my emotionally and psychologically disturbed friend, Dr Evelyn Hooker's "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" was published in 1958 and her results had been replicated by others a number of times before the APA vote in 1973, so there was more than a decade's worth of empirical science on the activists side, just like I said.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156275 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>To the contrary my emotionally and psychologically disturbed friend, Dr Evelyn Hooker's "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" was published in 1958 and her results had been replicated by others a number of times before the APA vote in 1973, so there was more than a decade's worth of empirical science on the activists side, just like I said.
Typical superficial gay bath house citing.

Hooker was a quack.

Learn to do deep research and you'll uncover information like this:

----------

For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study -- one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.

In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:
1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.

2. Hooker's published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.

3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.

4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.

5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.

6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.

7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test -- which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes -- the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives.
In order to understand fully the nature of the controversy over Hooker's study, it is helpful to review its history.

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...
Winston Smith

New Windsor, MD

#156276 Aug 25, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
HAR!HAR!HAR! "...lonely and can't wait for company"!!! So Funny!
Your killin' us this morning Winnie!
It's YUK! Get it right. Curly goes "Nyuk!" Frank goes "YUK"! and Winnie goes "duh".
YUK!YUK!YUK! Winston Smith. What a jackass.
I don't give a rat's arse what Frank, the eejit, "goes." Got it? You don't really qualify as Curly either, not that I am a big fan of the three stooges, but he was clearly the better of the four. I'll give your buddy, Gary, the role of Moe, you and Riccardo can fight over who wants to be Larry. Or you can take Joe, Curly's replacement.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156277 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Thomas Landess: A former English professor at the University of Dallas, Landess co-wrote three articles with Paul Cameron between 2001 and 2005, all of which appeared in the low-ranked pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. Cameron described Landess as a “long-time FRI collaborator, supporter, and friend” at a 2002 FRI banquet, where Landess was the featured speaker. Landess is also identified with the Neo-Confederate Movement and once served as contributing editor of Southern Partisan magazine. One 1984 article for that magazine condemned the Statue of Liberty for its the ideals of freedom and nineteenth and early twentieth century immigration.

ROTFLMAO.... Get back to me when you can find a legitimate source, not some cohort of Paul Cameron.
Winston Smith

New Windsor, MD

#156278 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.
This is typical of the type of character assault one might expect out of your sources, Gary. Focusing on what a person did decades before the study is cheap and ignores what the woman was doing in the years preceding the publication of her work in 1957. Two decades prior to that her interests turned to clinical psychology. And the career of Landess was? Teaching creative writing?

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156279 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Thomas Landess: A former English professor at the University of Dallas, Landess co-wrote three articles with Paul Cameron between 2001 and 2005, all of which appeared in the low-ranked pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. Cameron described Landess as a “long-time FRI collaborator, supporter, and friend” at a 2002 FRI banquet, where Landess was the featured speaker. Landess is also identified with the Neo-Confederate Movement and once served as contributing editor of Southern Partisan magazine. One 1984 article for that magazine condemned the Statue of Liberty for its the ideals of freedom and nineteenth and early twentieth century immigration.
ROTFLMAO.... Get back to me when you can find a legitimate source, not some cohort of Paul Cameron.
The Hooker study you cite is totally worthless even by the standards of research 50 years ago. Basically, she did everything wrong. Consider:

1. Did not use a random sample

2. Used homosexuals recommend by Mattachine Society activists.

3. Used a control group of heterosexuals that included heterosexuals who had had homosexual encounters as adults.

4. Botched analysis of her Rorschach Test -- she had zero experience in Rorschach Testing.

5. Mathematical calculations all wrong.

6. No double-blind

7. Homosexual subjects aware of ultimate goal of study

8 As stated above, Hooker was a rat-runner -- never before had she done studies on humans.

so forth and so on.

Absolutely worthless study by a silly woman trying to help her homosexual friends -- of which she had plenty.

What else you got, fella?

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156280 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
This is typical of the type of character assault one might expect out of your sources, Gary. Focusing on what a person did decades before the study is cheap and ignores what the woman was doing in the years preceding the publication of her work in 1957. Two decades prior to that her interests turned to clinical psychology. And the career of Landess was? Teaching creative writing?
Hooker wasn't qualified which is why her study is deeply flawed. Basically, she did everything wrong.

My God, man -- she used homosexual subjects recommended by the gay activist group "Mattachine Society"!

Added to this, some of the subjects in her hetero sample group had homosexual encounters. And how can you expect meaningful results if the subjects know what your ultimate goal is?

By the way, she readily admits she did the story because her gay friends asked her to do it for them.

No bias there, huh?

I make these points and other points in my earlier post. Rebut them or stop wasting everybody's time.
BrandX

California City, CA

#156281 Aug 25, 2012
George Clooney is queer.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#156282 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Hon, you're offering me the "scientific insight" of a former English professor and associate of Paul Cameron, one of, if not the most discredited "scientists" in America. Repeating it does nothing to add to its credibility, it only makes you look sillier than usual.

Get back to me if you can find a legitimate source. In the meantime I am just going to continue to laugh at you.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156283 Aug 25, 2012
Evelyn Hooker

The so-called "Rosa Parks of the gay movement" was a quack.

Read all about her "ground-breaking study" proving homosexuality is not a mental disorder:

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...

You fellows are going to have to do much better than the Hooker study on my watch.

Much better ...

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156284 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, you're offering me the "scientific insight" of a former English professor and associate of Paul Cameron, one of, if not the most discredited "scientists" in America. Repeating it does nothing to add to its credibility, it only makes you look sillier than usual.
Get back to me if you can find a legitimate source. In the meantime I am just going to continue to laugh at you.
Fine, then you should find rebutting his point by point destruction of the Hooker study easy.

Here are a few of the points he makes again. Rebut them or go masturbate somewhere else:

==========

1. Did not use a random sample

2. Used homosexuals recommend by Mattachine Society activists.

3. Used a control group of heterosexuals that included heterosexuals who had had homosexual encounters as adults.

4. Botched analysis of her Rorschach Test -- she had zero experience in Rorschach Testing.

5. Mathematical calculations all wrong.

6. No double-blind

7. Homosexual subjects aware of ultimate goal of study

8 As stated above, Hooker was a rat-runner -- never before had she done studies on humans.

==========
Winston Smith

New Windsor, MD

#156285 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hooker wasn't qualified which is why her study is deeply flawed. Basically, she did everything wrong.
My God, man -- she used homosexual subjects recommended by the gay activist group "Mattachine Society"!
Added to this, some of the subjects in her hetero sample group had homosexual encounters. And how can you expect meaningful results if the subjects know what your ultimate goal is?
By the way, she readily admits she did the story because her gay friends asked her to do it for them.
No bias there, huh?
I make these points and other points in my earlier post. Rebut them or stop wasting everybody's time.
Let us start with the Rorschach test then, big fella. One of your "gotcha" points. Do you know how one administers this test or are you simply happy parroting the complaints of someone you don't know? The test, as if you didn't know, consists of several ink blots that the test subject looks at. The comments of the subject are recorded, completely. About all that requires is a pen and paper.

Hooker didn't interpret those results herself. She handed them off to others to interpret. This brings up your double blind blathering. The people she had do the interpretations weren't aware of which subjects they were interpreting with respect to sexual orientation.
Winston Smith

New Windsor, MD

#156286 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Evelyn Hooker
The so-called "Rosa Parks of the gay movement" was a quack.
Read all about her "ground-breaking study" proving homosexuality is not a mental disorder:
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...
You fellows are going to have to do much better than the Hooker study on my watch.
Much better ...
We're supposed to take the word of a failed e-book author on who is a quack? Keep repeating your link, Gary. It makes you look rather challenged.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156287 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us start with the Rorschach test then, big fella. One of your "gotcha" points. Do you know how one administers this test or are you simply happy parroting the complaints of someone you don't know? The test, as if you didn't know, consists of several ink blots that the test subject looks at. The comments of the subject are recorded, completely. About all that requires is a pen and paper.
Hooker didn't interpret those results herself. She handed them off to others to interpret. This brings up your double blind blathering. The people she had do the interpretations weren't aware of which subjects they were interpreting with respect to sexual orientation.
Gad -- can't you even read simple English?

From the Landess paper:

----------

"... Despite her lack of clinical experience in what is called "projective techniques," according to Hooker, she administered and scored the Rorschach test herself. After scoring the test and constructing profiles, she placed the results in random order and passed them along to two experts in Rorschach analysis. Thus we have Hooker's scored results analyzed by Drs. Klopfer and Meyer, with two tasks in mind: first, to rate the subjects on "overall adjustment" and second, to see if they could determine which were the homosexuals and which were the heterosexuals.

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...

----------

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#156288 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
The Little Black Book was absolutely targeting heterosexual boys which is why the publishers of the booklet were busted at a high school youth conference handing it out to them.
Where did it target anyone under a certain age? Nothing in it states that it targeted straight boys under a certain age, but let's say it did target a certain age group........you still are only upset by a book providing information for boys, yet ignore a site that is design to answer sexual questions from kids at least 15 years on up......why is that?

The language is straight forward because it is design to get the message across.....so no fancy words are needed........and the only really graphic picture I saw, was how to put a condom on correctly......and if I had a grandson who was a teenager and active sexually......this booklet does provide a lot of good information and phone numbers of people who can help, if they felt isolated.........like young Gay men do at a time when dealing with who you are is difficult.

Again, either you haven't actually read the "Little Black Book" or YOU'VE decided that there is more than meets the eye!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#156289 Aug 25, 2012
ftabmember wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
You say...."Gays and Lesbians for the most part are NOT depraved individuals!!!"
depraved: marked by corruption or evil; especially: perverted (Merriam-Webster)
Well, then you deny reality. Homosexual 'sex' is a depraved (perverted) form of sexual intercourse. Personally, I believe it's the most depraved expression of humanity. You know, akin to an abomination.
-----
Well, you are entitled to your opinion......but I disagree with ya!!!!

I also recommend or suggest that you stop thinking about it or doing it if it bothers you so much!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156290 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! Did your Stanford Evolution scientist provide you with this stat?!!!! LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Are they required to? LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Who said children don't factor into marriage?!! No one I know. What was said was that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage.
Children does not equal procreation.
Factor does not equal requirement.
Your deceitfulness is hilarious KiMare!! I bet you think you are really smart!! I bet you brag to all the other fundies at your church socials about how smart you are by presenting the stupidity you launch on these Topix boards and they all congradulate you!!! Stupid fundies!!!
<quoted text>
I see. People can obtain handicap rights for many reasons, not just being in a wheelchair. Got it. So its just like how people can obtain marriage rights for many reasons, not just because they are going to procreate.
(Um, do you see what an idiot you are?!!! Everyone else does!!!)
<quoted text>
I love it when you delve into flowery speak! It's like your fingers are just a going and you think you have this incredible "point" to validate yourself and all you are doing is just typing nonsense!!
Let me rephrase what you just said. Being in a wheelchair can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential. That's exactly the same as saying, "procreating can be one factor that identifes many as married, and many of marriage rights and privileges address that single potential."
But, as YOUR words indicate, being in a wheelchair "CAN" be one factor. Just as procreating "CAN" be one factor. Neither are the sole and only factor.
But please, let's continue disecting your nonsense! Carry on!
<quoted text>
Children in marriage is not the same thing as procreating fool. Please decide what it is that you are talking about and stick with one thing.
Oh, and by the way, the potential that marriages produce children is NOT "overwhelming". Do you have any idea how many people marry AFTER the age of potential childbearing?!! LOL!! Damn you are stupid!!!
<quoted text>
OMG!!! What a dolt! Did you think that adding "solely" would make you seem smart?!! Um, first off, first cousins can, and do marry, so claiming that they are not allowed to because they can potentially procreate makes you an outright liar and idiot. 25 states allow first cousins to marry you moron!!
And only 8 states still require a blood test. And blood tests were and are solely about potential disease. Period. They have nothing to do with the bullshit you are trying to peddle.
Idiotic scoffing.

You are so boring. No wonder no one comes to your class.

Smirk.
Frank Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#156291 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't give a rat's arse what Frank, the eejit, "goes." Got it? You don't really qualify as Curly either, not that I am a big fan of the three stooges, but he was clearly the better of the four. I'll give your buddy, Gary, the role of Moe, you and Riccardo can fight over who wants to be Larry. Or you can take Joe, Curly's replacement.
Oh Winnie if you really didn't care, you wouldn't try and imitate me and respond to my every post.

I think you're fibbing Winnie. I piss you off.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Winston Smith. What a jackass!
Frank Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#156292 Aug 25, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't give a rat's arse what Frank, the eejit, "goes." Got it? You don't really qualify as Curly either, not that I am a big fan of the three stooges, but he was clearly the better of the four. I'll give your buddy, Gary, the role of Moe, you and Riccardo can fight over who wants to be Larry. Or you can take Joe, Curly's replacement.
Well OK but you gotta take Dingleberry for your team.

The Winston Dingleberry dream team! HAR!HAR!HAR!

YUK!YUK!YUK! Winnie and Dingleberry. What a pair of jackasses!

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.

Citrus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Target practice 2 hr charged 6 times 4
News Man wounded in Hacienda Heights shooting (Jun '12) 3 hr CRIPS RUN SGV 30
Maclaren Hall childrens center or juvinile center (Dec '10) 8 hr momemaya 170
Why overbuilding Glendora meeting 8 hr oversight board 33
News Man fatally shot by Azusa officer after robbery... (Sep '12) Jul 25 Joseph Santacruz 7
News Area Police Officer Shoots Suspect in Domestic ... (Apr '14) Jul 25 Joseph Santacruz 3
News Take a Ride on the New Gold Line Extension Open... Feb '16 Metro Gold Line F... 1

Citrus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Citrus Mortgages