Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

ELH

Portland, OR

#149974 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop trying to obfuscate.
The jury is in -- gay parenting is abomination...
I see you have a word of the day calandar! Nice.

What "jury" is that? There aren't even enough people who agree with you on this thread to form a jury and even if there was mentally ill people can't serve on juries.

Keep trying you pathetic old queen!
ELH

Portland, OR

#149975 Jul 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure spend a lot of time & effort looking for ways to defend gayness. Lol, what a loser.
Aside from Professor Marvelous who is a known closet queen, no one on this site (gay or straight) spends half as much time thinking about all the "dirty" things that gay men do than you do. You should probably just get it over with and take the "plunge".
ELH

Portland, OR

#149976 Jul 11, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a wierd person.


Says the pervert who posted kiddie porn.
Bruno wrote:
Once, back before I got the sneeze guard I got spew on my hands so I wiped it on my keyboard and my dad was like "Bruno, what the hell is this sticky stuff all over the keyboard?"
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#149977 Jul 11, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, because we name streets after supposed Saints.....that really confirms what you believe........interesting!!!
You should know by now.....that I do keep it real.......lol:-)
I know you keep it real ... and you don't have to be a beleiver, but I think you can put two and two together and figure out that there was a strong religious influence here, unlike what some of your friends think so that blows the statement that the religious part didn't appear in the some Constitutional and civil rights law. This is one nation under God no mater what remeber??
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#149978 Jul 11, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the pervert who posted kiddie porn.
<quoted text>
LOL .. coming from an imoral second class homo like you I could care less about your lies ...

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#149979 Jul 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No you didn't, you gave a FRC report on a study. That's not evidence.
I addressed the actual study. Nothing damning about it.
You can continue to play the "if we cover our heads maybe the boogeyman will go away" if you want, but I'd submit to you mainstream America won't.

According to the study children of gay parents are 10 TIMES more likely to have been sexually touched by their parent. If you say that's not damning, please define the word damning to us.

The study also points out that of the 59 studies cited by the APA as evidence gay parent doesn't harm children, not one of these studies met the APA's basic standard for validity; namely, all were limited to 18-44 sampling size. Meanwhile, the Regenerus study sampled 3000 people.

If you know of a study using a larger sampling please tell us about it. If you know of specific design flaws in the Regenerus study please tell us about that. But to continue to discredit the study using the misleading and outright lying approach you use is typical.

Virtually all of the studies you cited in the past were done by lesbian researchers like Gatrill. Worse still, rather than choosing test subjects at random as any valid sampling would, Gatrill, et al, used their lesbian friends and other peers, the result being none of their generalizations to the wider lesbian population are useful or valid.

Regenerus avoided this pitfall as well as many others seen in earlier studies.

Ironically enough, you continue to argue these deeply flawed early studies are the gold standard while Regenerus's study is somehow not as valid as these others. Of course you won't provide names of these earlier studies and that's because you've never read one.

In other words your reaction is a knee-jerk one, not a substantive one.

But prove me wrong.

Tell us about an earlier study that debunks Regenerus's work. Give us a cite so we can check it out.

I won't hold my breath.
NEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Children of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most Outcomes
By Peter Sprigg
In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, ssociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.

[...]

Conclusion:

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#149980 Jul 11, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you have a word of the day calandar! Nice.
What "jury" is that? There aren't even enough people who agree with you on this thread to form a jury and even if there was mentally ill people can't serve on juries.
Keep trying you pathetic old queen!
Based on the Regenerus study no gay person should ever be permitted to adopt again. This study says in to no uncertain terms you people are horrible parents -- you ruin lives, you children turn out promiscuous, on welfare, high-school drop outs, sexually abused, sexually confused, the list goes on and on.

In other words, the jig is up. The misrepresentations and outright mistruths you're been promoting about gay parenting has now been exposed for the pack of lies it is.

Game over.
Winston Smith

United States

#149981 Jul 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure spend a lot of time & effort looking for ways to defend gayness. Lol, what a loser.
You sure do spend a lot of time & effort making smarmy little quips while adding nothing of substance in opposition to homosexuality. I think it is probably safe to assume you contribute similarly to all the other endeavors in your life, like work and family. I've got to hand it to folks like you. It takes a great deal of effort to make it appear that you're busy when in fact you're accomplishing very little while expending as little energy as possible. Bravo!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#149983 Jul 11, 2012
The Regenerus study is a comparison of apples and elephants, where he admits that the conclusions were drawn even before he had the data to support them. His comparison of intact biological families to non-intact biological families, where at least one parent had a same sex relationship at some point in the child's life, is just as absurd as it is invalid. This study offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to the effect of having grown up with a gay parent or parents, because there were darn few of them in the study. Only one participant grew up with two parents of the same sex and only a few lived had with the parent who had had a same sex relationship at some point full time. This study was bought to provide ammunition to the anti-gay right, but even a cursory look at its methodology leads to serious questions.

Here's a link to an excellent analysis of some of this study's most fatal flaws.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/4...

Regenerus may have had the largest sample available, but he didn't have a clue as to how to use it properly. It's probably why he wrote his conclusions even before he had all his data.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149986 Jul 11, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL .. coming from an imoral second class homo like you I could care less about your lies ...
Hey Bruno, You phonographic post (#149657) was removed. In fact it was so offensive that both of the post were it was quoted were also removed.

I hope you have replacing your porn filled hard drive because even TOPIX takes a grim view of perverts posts child porn on their site.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149987 Jul 11, 2012
Dwayne wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big Bang is nothing more than a theory and has never even come close to being proven fact. Some of that theoretical physics stuff is just as much "impossible" as the stories of the Bible. And the Bible stories are merely analogies, just as the Schrodinger's Cat story, not meant to be taken literally - YOU IGNORANT SCUMBAG.
You are a perfect case for why school children shouldn't be left unsupervised.

As foe "theoretical physics stuff being impossible" if you make make it through the remedial program in your middle school maybe someday you will be able to take a physics class. In which case you will find out just how stupid your comment was.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149988 Jul 11, 2012
Oh dear, is that kiddie porn posting pervert Bruno pissed about something?
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#149989 Jul 11, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Bruno, You phonographic post (#149657) was removed. In fact it was so offensive that both of the post were it was quoted were also removed.
I hope you have replacing your porn filled hard drive because even TOPIX takes a grim view of perverts posts child porn on their site.
I have nothing to hide you idiot, topix can easily find out it is you who posts the perversion using other peoples names . You do this quite alot ... it will soon backfire on you queer boy haha
ELH

Portland, OR

#149990 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Third -- and perhaps most importantly, the sampling was of grown children from gay households ages 19-39.
This bullshit might work on you hatemonger sites where, as long as they are in agreement, the poster take each other at their word. But I think you had better go and actually READ the study you are making a total fool of yourself right now.

And considering your "baseline" that is pretty damn foolish.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#149991 Jul 11, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The Regenerus study is a comparison of apples and elephants, where he admits that the conclusions were drawn even before he had the data to support them. His comparison of intact biological families to non-intact biological families, where at least one parent had a same sex relationship at some point in the child's life, is just as absurd as it is invalid. This study offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to the effect of having grown up with a gay parent or parents, because there were darn few of them in the study. Only one participant grew up with two parents of the same sex and only a few lived had with the parent who had had a same sex relationship at some point full time. This study was bought to provide ammunition to the anti-gay right, but even a cursory look at its methodology leads to serious questions.
Here's a link to an excellent analysis of some of this study's most fatal flaws.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/10/4...
Regenerus may have had the largest sample available, but he didn't have a clue as to how to use it properly. It's probably why he wrote his conclusions even before he had all his data.
I see.

So you would have us believe Dr. Regenerous doesn't know how to design a valid study but "Rick and Kansas does"?

Let's try this: not one earlier study included enough people to qualify as national probability sampled population.

This means all the studies to date -- with the exception of the Regeneous study -- cannot be used to drawn generalized conclusions about gay parenting.

Do you at least concede that -- and if you don't name one study that qualifies as a national probability sampled population study.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149992 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Latest Study Shows Kids of Gay Parents Deeply Harmed by experience.


The latest study shows that Professor Marvelous is a bitter desperate old queen with nothing else to do 24/7 but take something heard and blow it up and out of proportion until it bears no resemble to reality.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149993 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
So you would have us believe Dr. Regenerous doesn't know how to design a valid study but "Rick and Kansas does"?
No Professor, you DON'T see. The problem is that Professor Marvelous doesn't know how to INTERPRET a study. And (as usual) You are misrepresenting FACTS to make them fit with your homophobic OPINION.
ELH

Portland, OR

#149995 Jul 11, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I have nothing to hide you idiot, topix can easily find out it is you who posts the perversion...
Um... You are aware that many people SAW your comment before it was removed?

Your funny azz hissyfit aside, you are right that TOPIX can find out WHO posed an explicitly sexual comment about an 11 year old girl so I have no reason to worried about your idle little threats.

So when the police come to seize your computer you can always tell them that there is nothing wrong with a grown azz man posting on a (non porn) forum about fingering an 11 year old GIRL.. after it proves you're not a "gay boy".

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#149996 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
I see.
So you would have us believe Dr. Regenerous doesn't know how to design a valid study but "Rick and Kansas does"?
I didn't say he didn't know how to conduct a valid study, merely pointed out that in this case he was paid not to.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Let's try this: not one earlier study included enough people to qualify as national probability sampled population.
That is true, the caveat to that however, is that even though these samples were insufficient to draw definitive conclusions, taken as a body of work, one has to wonder why problems that those backing Regenerus insist he has proved, not one of these other studies ever even stumbled across.
Prof Marvel wrote:
This means all the studies to date -- with the exception of the Regeneous study -- cannot be used to drawn generalized conclusions about gay parenting.
But Regenerus did not study the effects of gay parenting, he studied the alleged effect of having either a mother or father (if you had both, he only counted your father) having a same sex 'relationship' at least some point when they were growing up while that parent was still in the home. His "gay parent" category is so heterogeneous to the point of complete meaninglessness, because he hasn't got much of a clue as to how many of those parents who had a same sex relationship were actually "gay".
Prof Marvel wrote:
Do you at least concede that -- and if you don't name one study that qualifies as a national probability sampled population study.
Cupcake, there are no studies of a comparable size on this subject, not even close, but its size does absolutely nothing to prove its validity.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#149997 Jul 11, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
You can continue to play the "if we cover our heads maybe the boogeyman will go away" if you want, but I'd submit to you mainstream America won't.
According to the study children of gay parents are 10 TIMES more likely to have been sexually touched by their parent. If you say that's not damning, please define the word damning to us.
Let me define the word "dishonest". You.
This is what the study actually reports...
When it comes to gay fathers, there is no statistically significant difference between the percentages of children of IBF (intact biological families) who are touched sexually, and the children of GF (gay fathers).

And when it comes to the children of LM (lesbian mothers) it says: "It is entirely plausible, however, that sexual victimization could have been at the hands of the LM respondents’ biological father, prompting the mother to leave the union and—at some point in the future—commence a same-sex relationship"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
Prof Marvel wrote:
The study also points out that of the 59 studies cited by the APA as evidence gay parent doesn't harm children,...yadda...yadda...ya dda.. In other words your reaction is a knee-jerk one, not a substantive one.
Your reaction is the knee-jerk one. I didn't talk about other studies.
Prof Marvel wrote:
But prove me wrong.
Tell us about an earlier study that debunks Regenerus's work. Give us a cite so we can check it out.
I won't hold my breath.
<quoted text>
Darn.

Anyway, read the ACTUAL STUDY and not the FRC's dishonest report on it.

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.

Walnut Creek Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Undocumented' but inspiring (Nov '12) 10 min ONLY8FARTS 201
Facebook vs Twitter (Dec '17) 2 hr Perfect Analogy 194
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Colorful Digi... (Aug '17) 21 hr Very Fine 229
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) 21 hr Not Fine 507
News Mountain View school to be named after undocume... Jun 18 ONLYONETERM 13
Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14) Jun 11 Corporate Empire 122
News Bay area protests against CPS and Family Court ... Jun 5 cupcake 1

Walnut Creek Jobs

Personal Finance

Walnut Creek Mortgages