Deconstructing the Gay Marriage Lie

Posted in the Falmouth Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Kevin

Harlingen, TX

#1 Oct 2, 2012
The arguements are compelling for gay marriage. Persuasive. Evocative. Superficially coherant.

The media's taken it and ran with it, spinning compelling praise chocked-full of down-home sentiments and faux-embrace of rightiousness.

Who among us could cautiously reflect on the implications of such a monumentous Cultural statement that's made by codifying same-sex relationships, when there's such a tidal-wave of support from the Liberal Media?

Who among us would deny 'equality' to another human being? Who could be so cold? And that's how the arguement is framed - tossing around words like "Equality" and "Discrimination" -riding the victimhood coattails of the Blacks to achieve maximum empathy-mongering.

The push for gay marriage isn't for the reasons you see in op-eds or in news stories. It is to get the government stamp of approval on their lifestyle - a sanctifying precedent that would make it near-impossible for discerning or people of faith to resist the gay agenda - the power-hungry, reckless activists who are using gay marriage as merely a tool. Oh, and then there's those, "We just want to marry who we love" phony sentiments. Don't be so stupid. The Media lapdogs are drooling all over themselves over gay marriage - excitedly tail-wagging and panting.

The media's celebration and promotion of homosexuality brings to mind the cinematic image ["Hannibal", 2001] of Ray Liotta sitting at the dinner table, drugged, lobotomized, foggy-eyed, weaving and drooling- the top half of his head missing while being spoonfed his own brains. The media has America in a very similar state - in a similar spoon-feeding highchair- catering to their successfully-lobotomized and browbeaten masses with a steady diet of gay-affirming propagands.

What's the deal with this "gay marriage" thing? From listening to it's proponents, there can't possibly be any negative effects on society. There is no, no possibility of that. The Media and Obama backs it. Heck, even Homer Simpson and Family Guy are on board. For this, you can't argue with the incontrovertable merits of gay marriage. And if you do, that means you are an archaic, knuckle-dragging, low-brow backwoods bigot incapable of love or tolerance - so the sentiment goes.

And so the case is made for the virtues of gay marriage, with activists and the complicit Media using brute-force politics and sleazy propaganda to muzzle any and all dissagreement. Even tough-guy Bill O'reilly cowered from the intimidation from gay activists.

Once upon a time, revolutionist prophet Karl Marx envisioned the best way to take down a Nation was to abolish the Traditional Family. And that's what gay marriage achieves: deinstitutionalization of societal traditions.

Counterfeit marriage cheapens, taints and devalues a sacred, fundamental societal construct in place since the beginnings of civilization - marriage, the cornerstone of the nuclear family, the bedrock of society. It hopelessly blurrs gender roles in the minds of children - who, as the Texas A&M study just confirmed, children from gay households fare worse in 77 of 80 developmental areas.

They (gays) are as trainwrecks slated for derailment, blighted by drastic overrepresentation in nearly every S.T.D., including being around 50x as likely to contract H.I.V. than straights. Higher rates of suicide (6x more likely than straights), higher rates of breast cancer, domestic violence, substance abuse - a laundry list of destructive pathologies and proclivities.

These abyssmal realities haven't changed just because the media's gone overboard repackaging their image with their dumbing-down distortions ("Big Bang Theory"). And haven't been phased out of existence just because Team Obama has pushed Acedemia to promote it.
Kevin

Harlingen, TX

#2 Oct 2, 2012
One of the biggest pieces of "the gay marriage lie" has been committed against gays themselves. High-ranking gays in the Media have browbeaten THEM into thinking if somehow they could finally have access to marriage, the wold would magically become a better place for them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3 Oct 2, 2012
Kevin wrote:
It hopelessly blurrs gender roles in the minds of children - who, as the Texas A&M study just confirmed, children from gay households fare worse in 77 of 80 developmental areas.
Always make sure to cite a totally discredited study that was so bad, the journal retracted it!

And while you're doing so, completely misrepresent what the study was!
Terry

Harlingen, TX

#4 Oct 2, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Always make sure to cite a totally discredited study that was so bad, the journal retracted it!
And while you're doing so, completely misrepresent what the study was!
The reason why it was "bad" was because it's outcomes were so damning to certain people on the Left. For those reasons alone, this study REALLY STUNK. A horrible, horrible study, it was - for those reasons.

But yes, they made formal complaints at the University to try to discredit Regenerus, but the committee could find no grounds for misconduct in his effort.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#5 Oct 2, 2012
Terry wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason why it was "bad" was because it's outcomes were so damning to certain people on the Left. For those reasons alone, this study REALLY STUNK. A horrible, horrible study, it was - for those reasons.
It was horrible because the methodology was a joke.

How is it supposed to tell us about the quality of gay parenting when he doesn't control for factors like divorce and single-parenting? You think those might be significant?

It's apples to oranges.

How is it supposed to tell us about the quality of gay parenting when virtually none of the kids in the study spent their lives being raised by a pair of gay parents?

I'll revise my earlier statement. It's worse than apples to oranges. It's apples to a baseball painted orange.
Matt

Harlingen, TX

#6 Oct 2, 2012
Feeble attempt to obfuscate, my friend. You clearly just did a quick google search and parroted what the first few Mainstrem Media gay- sympathizing commentators tried to label the study as.

It's a desperate reach to find some "ah-ha!" variable that discredits this peer-reviewed, respectable study.

Apples-to-oranges represents the comparison between the quality of parenting of gays and straights.

To quote gay British actor Rupert Everett, "I can think of nothing worse than being brought up by two gay dads". Like you said, apples and oranges.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#7 Oct 3, 2012
Matt wrote:
Feeble attempt to obfuscate, my friend. You clearly just did a quick google search and parroted what the first few Mainstrem Media gay- sympathizing commentators tried to label the study as.
Refute the two criticisms. I'll wait.
Dylan

Harlingen, TX

#8 Oct 3, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Refute the two criticisms. I'll wait.
You'll wait allright.

I'll not be dissecting it for your convenience, because your people have already advanced an aggressive narrative to dismiss it from every angle (using the standards of their own rationality, albeit), the narrative your lapdog gay-cheerleading media is embracing.

Apples and oranges. 77 out of 80. Rupert Everett. Elton John.

Here, we have further confirmation of my point from yet another gay Media icon, Elton John, expressing misgivings about a child not having both a mother and a father in the home:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9 Oct 4, 2012
Dylan wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll wait allright.
Right, because you CAN'T address them.
Tom

Harlingen, TX

#10 Oct 4, 2012
You'll be waiting allright.

Scott Rose', who lodged a formal complaint to the University, who then conducted an in-depth analysis to this already peer-reviewed study and found no academic misconduct on Regenerus' part.

Gay activists then banded together to conduct an audit of the methodology and discredited, discounted and dismissed the points that don's square with gay activists' propaganda.

To point out individual parts of this study withg yet another gay activist would be pointless, because you already have in the waiting predictable cannon-fodder to refute everything I'll say, so predictable you could set your watch to it (which applies to everything gay activists respond with to their detractors).

This study so enraged gay activists that they leveled an Alinsky-esqe, ad-hominem hit job to damage the study's author, which is really all they have. And considering the shoddy standards in which people like GLSEN conduct their own studies, this is hypocritic.

In 2010, a study from the U. of Kansas by Walter Shumm, found that children who are raised in homosexual households are up 12x to be gay or bi, which again refutes the narrative that gay activists promote.

It's funny when gays try to discredit the Regenerus study, they inadvertantly shoot themselves in the foot and damage their own reputations: when they say its invalid because children weren't didn't get raised by the same gay couple their entire childhood miss one damning detail: Out of the 3000, Regenerus could only find TWO instances of that variable, thus underscoring the domestic instability and turmoil of gay households that validate his original findings to begin with.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11 Oct 5, 2012
Tom wrote:
You'll be waiting allright.
Because you can't refute those points. The study's methodology is garbage and it doesn't reach the conclusions you claim it does. It really tells us nothing about children being raised by a homosexual couple at all.

You can keep ranting about various tangents if you'd like, but the fact remains: the study is junk.
Tom wrote:
It's funny when gays try to discredit the Regenerus study, they inadvertantly shoot themselves in the foot and damage their own reputations: when they say its invalid because children weren't didn't get raised by the same gay couple their entire childhood miss one damning detail: Out of the 3000, Regenerus could only find TWO instances of that variable, thus underscoring the domestic instability and turmoil of gay households that validate his original findings to begin with.
It wasn't the *same gay couple* for an entire childhood, it was *any gay couple*. Most of the children in the 'gay parent' group were raised by an opposite-sex couple.

Hey, a married man and woman did a poor job raising a kid. The woman had a lesbian experience in college. Therefore, gay parenting is bad!
Tom

Harlingen, TX

#12 Oct 5, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you can't refute those points. The study's methodology is garbage and it doesn't reach the conclusions you claim it does. It really tells us nothing about children being raised by a homosexual couple at all.
You can keep ranting about various tangents if you'd like, but the fact remains: the study is junk.
<quoted text>
It wasn't the *same gay couple* for an entire childhood, it was *any gay couple*. Most of the children in the 'gay parent' group were raised by an opposite-sex couple.
Hey, a married man and woman did a poor job raising a kid. The woman had a lesbian experience in college. Therefore, gay parenting is bad!
It is you who are reaching, it is you and your ilk who are on an obfuscation crusade against any and all research that conflicts with you deceitful propaganda you sell your lifestyle with.

The study is junk because you despeerately, desperately need it to be, and your interperetation of it is hopelessly flawed, as you have an agenda agaisnt it to begin with.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#13 Oct 5, 2012
Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
It is you who are reaching, it is you and your ilk who are on an obfuscation crusade against any and all research that conflicts with you deceitful propaganda you sell your lifestyle with.
The study is junk because you despeerately, desperately need it to be, and your interperetation of it is hopelessly flawed, as you have an agenda agaisnt it to begin with.
I've explained exactly WHY it's junk. You've spent post after post going on tangents, but you refuse to address the criticisms.

Put up or shut up.
Tom

Houston, TX

#14 Oct 6, 2012
Your feeble ineptness at explaining it are the same cookie-cutter, recycled obfuscations pushed as a face-saving damage control effort to protect the gay lie, the facade that they can raise children equally.

If you are so damaged by the study, convene with a pool of gay researchers and engender your own study to refute this one. Put up or shut up. Apples and oranges.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#15 Oct 8, 2012
Tom wrote:
Your feeble ineptness at explaining it are the same cookie-cutter, recycled obfuscations
My explanations were easily understood by anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

The study, quite simply, did not study children raised by a pair of gay parents. Yet, you repeatedly try to claim that it shows children raised by gay parents do poorly.

Address the fatal flaws in the study.
Tom

Harlingen, TX

#16 Oct 8, 2012
No "fatal flaws" in this study, only deliberate misinterperatation, obfuscation, and intellectual laziness on the part of gays whove vested so much of themselves perpetuating and promoting the falsehoods that this study exposes.

No how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

No how much you re-upholster a rotted out couch, it's still rotten.

No how much the gay-cheerleading media try to manufacture and promote the noble narratives of the gay lifestyle, gay marriage and gay parenting, it still is commiserate to the example of polishing a turd.

Apples and oranges.
Tom

Harlingen, TX

#17 Oct 8, 2012
Lines 5,7, and 9 were missing "matter". "no matter..."
Tom

Harlingen, TX

#18 Oct 8, 2012
What is really a curious detail for me is the outcry of contempt for this study by gays, a study, they affirm, is no more than schrewd, junk-science.

It is the magnitude of the outcry that is so disproportionate toward a target that they affirm to be so inept and flawed. It is like, they're terrified of this study for some reason...for some reason. What could the reason be? What could justify such a militant protest by them from a study they affirm is so greatly flawed and biased?

That lengthy formal process to discredit it at the University was unsuccessful, so now Scott Rose', that vicious, intolerant straight-basher, is pursuing a complaing with the American Sociological Association.

The magnitude of outcry is disproportionate for a junk science study: it's commiserate, in fact, to a damning work that exposes them. Like I said, this is the lone reason this study really, really stunk. "The truth is hate for those who hate the truth".

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#19 Oct 9, 2012
Tom wrote:
No "fatal flaws" in this study
I gave you two.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#20 Oct 9, 2012
Tom wrote:
What is really a curious detail for me is the outcry of contempt for this study by gays, a study, they affirm, is no more than schrewd, junk-science.
It is the magnitude of the outcry that is so disproportionate toward a target that they affirm to be so inept and flawed.
Regnerus isn't inept. He set out to get the results that he did. The entire purpose of the study was to make gay people look bad, not to learn something.
Tom wrote:
That lengthy formal process to discredit it at the University was unsuccessful, so now Scott Rose', that vicious, intolerant straight-basher, is pursuing a complaing with the American Sociological Association.
No, the initial complaint went to the journal that published the study.

That journal did an internal audit to review the process by which the study got through peer review (corruption) and the study itself (garbage).

The auditor's final verdit: "It's bullshit."

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

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Falmouth Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Avesta Housing appoints new senior managers Oct 16 Kmmamad 1
Gay Marriage vs. Obama in Maine, and why Cutler... Oct 15 spectrumuser 1
Portland cafe switcheroo. Goodbye Crema, hello ... Oct 1 Portland 2
Boehner Believes US Ground Forces May Be Needed... Sep 28 What in THE Hell 3
Dem rep under fire over video with lewd referen... Sep '14 barefoot2626 29
Vote NO on the upcoming Bear Hunting Referendum... Sep '14 The Bear facts 3
Scarborough Downs Fund Raiser For Child Abuse Sep '14 Sharon Terry 3
Falmouth Dating
Find my Match

Falmouth Jobs

Falmouth People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Falmouth News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Falmouth

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]