Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 25,032

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17103 Mar 13, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Harmful? Not really.
Anal sex again? LMAO What a broken record.
What about loving companionship and bonding between to committed people?
More silly MK twirl.
Are you kidding me?
Scoffing denial about mutual degrading abuse in a vain attempt to equate it to the sacred design of nature.

Smile.
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#17105 Mar 13, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
I'm a changed man. I'm going to go out and eat me some p:u:s:sy. It's a start!!
Robert
Damn right!
Is your mom available?

Robert
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#17106 Mar 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Scoffing denial about mutual degrading abuse in a vain attempt to equate it to the sacred design of nature.
Smile.
Here's some more denial for you, Genius:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
Please prove your assertion that god evolved into Adam.
Please prove your assertion that Adam was evolved, not created.
Please prove your assertion that god is genderless.
Please prove your assertion that 80% of all seafood poisoning is from shellfish.
Please prove your assertion that eve is created in god's image.
Please prove your assertion that radiation caused Moses' face to shine.
Please your assertion that the biblical use of the word 'shine' means 'glow'.
Please prove your assertion that god can reduce radiation exposure by holding out his hand or turning his back.
Please prove your assertion that god is radioactive.
Please prove that homosexual is a better translation for the word that it replaced in bibles in 1946.

Snicker Snort.(Suck blow suck, NoIQ!)

Robert

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#17107 Mar 13, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
I'm a changed man. I'm going to go out and eat me some p:u:s:sy. It's a start!!
Robert
Kuntmary has a mangina you could munch on.
Robsan5

United States

#17108 Mar 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Scoffing denial about mutual degrading abuse in a vain attempt to equate it to the sacred design of nature.
Smile.
Hey Genius, tell us all about this "sacred design of nature" concept you have. Where do you get these imaginary ideas from?!?

Snicker Snort.(Suck, NoIQ, suck!)

Robert
Daniel

Oklahoma City, OK

#17111 Mar 13, 2013
I have read many comments on this thread and have determined both sides a severely uneducated in the matters of the bible and nature. Lets address the secular view of the bible and homosexuality. Most cling to the King James Version. Named after King James decided the current version did not suit his needs to divorce his current wife. He commissioned a new bible to be wrote in its entirety to focus mainly on his needs. This version also adapted the wrongly translated and misused word homosexuality. The original papers stated that an adult male may not lay with a boy child for it was sin. This was later translated and made to hold homosexuality as a sin by the translator. NOT GOD or JESUS.

Now the nature point of view. Every species at there core is meant to reproduce. With this fact alone I adopted an earl belief that homosexuality in any form was to be a crime against nature. After more research into this subject I came to realize this as well was a falsehood. The main focus in all of nature spanning across every form of life is preservation of the species. In times of low population certain species of reptiles will spontaneously change sex. Male into female or female into male depending on which sex is missing most in the population. In times of high population and low resources these same species will become asexual and quit reproducing offspring to ensure the survival of the species as a whole. In larger species such as mammals we see a change in chemistry to produce the same effect. Such as male dogs only mating with other male dogs. Since humans have no real self control in that aspect nature has taken its course. We see this in physical construct from what should be seen as a masculine man to feminine man and from feminine female to masculine female. Where these lines cross we see the physical form born of both male and female genitalia, hermaphrodites. Nature has insured the survival of mankind to its best ability in population control to the fact that now are being born gay and lesbian humans. This is not only natural and not sinful but it is also mandatory for our survival. The world as a whole is over populated and our resources and being expended at an alarming rate.

So for those out there that think there is something wrong biblicaly or naturally please do your research. I have and it truly forced me to change my stance. I am a heterosexual male that once thought as some others. But I chose to do the research and chose to keep an open mind about this subject. Nobody deserves to be hated for simply being who they are unless who they are is truly being sinful or perpetuating crimes against nature.
Xom

Richmond Hill, Canada

#17112 Mar 13, 2013
Daniel, I'd like to thank you for crusading against ignorance. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
The entire USA

Anonymous Proxy

#17113 Mar 13, 2013
Daniel wrote:
I have read many comments on this thread and have determined both sides a severely uneducated in the matters of the bible and nature. Lets address the secular view of the bible and homosexuality. Most cling to the King James Version. Named after King James decided the current version did not suit his needs to divorce his current wife. He commissioned a new bible to be wrote in its entirety to focus mainly on his needs. This version also adapted the wrongly translated and misused word homosexuality. The original papers stated that an adult male may not lay with a boy child for it was sin. This was later translated and made to hold homosexuality as a sin by the translator. NOT GOD or JESUS.
Now the nature point of view. Every species at there core is meant to reproduce. With this fact alone I adopted an earl belief that homosexuality in any form was to be a crime against nature. After more research into this subject I came to realize this as well was a falsehood. The main focus in all of nature spanning across every form of life is preservation of the species. In times of low population certain species of reptiles will spontaneously change sex. Male into female or female into male depending on which sex is missing most in the population. In times of high population and low resources these same species will become asexual and quit reproducing offspring to ensure the survival of the species as a whole. In larger species such as mammals we see a change in chemistry to produce the same effect. Such as male dogs only mating with other male dogs. Since humans have no real self control in that aspect nature has taken its course. We see this in physical construct from what should be seen as a masculine man to feminine man and from feminine female to masculine female. Where these lines cross we see the physical form born of both male and female genitalia, hermaphrodites. Nature has insured the survival of mankind to its best ability in population control to the fact that now are being born gay and lesbian humans. This is not only natural and not sinful but it is also mandatory for our survival. The world as a whole is over populated and our resources and being expended at an alarming rate.
So for those out there that think there is something wrong biblicaly or naturally please do your research. I have and it truly forced me to change my stance. I am a heterosexual male that once thought as some others. But I chose to do the research and chose to keep an open mind about this subject. Nobody deserves to be hated for simply being who they are unless who they are is truly being sinful or perpetuating crimes against nature.
Reading the entirety of your comment it is determined you're an idiot.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17114 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'rev', you are lying again. Nor are you the first gay to slander the study. Which is why you make opinions rather than posting a valid peer review. All those were addressed by a peer review and the study was FULLY exonerated.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/678...
As to 'denying that children live in single parent homes', you lie once again.
You lie that I deny there are poor heterosexual families. Another silly stupid charge.
You lie that I deny homosexuals deceived heterosexuals to marry. No one 'trapped' them, they made the decision freely to be deceitful, just as you are in making these claims.
Furthermore, you lie that I stated my 'opinion' about the social health of children in these situations. Every single valid social study has verified the severe negative affects of any family type outside of a biological family.
You then shift to lying about spiritual parentage and who is in whose hands. Just from your post, it is clear that you herald after the father of lies.
Satan tempted Jesus with twisted Scripture. Jesus replied with Scripture in Spirit and truth;
Luke 17:1-2 (NASB)
1 He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!
2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Smile.
You continue to cite bogus reports. the comments from the Witherspoon Institute in defense of Regnerus' first bogus study are quoted as follows:

"... In his original article, he reported that an initially-screened population of 15,000 young adults aged 18-39 yielded a set of 163 who said their mothers had had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood.(There were only 73 who said this of their fathers.)

In his new article, Regnerus has re-sorted a dozen of the FGR cases into the MLR category (since in these cases the subjects reported that both parents had had same-sex relationships). Now focusing on his 175 subjects in the MLR category, he finds that fewer than half of them (85) ever lived with both their mother and her same-sex partner during their childhood.

But that low number tapers off dramatically when subjects report the length of the couple-headed period:“31 reported living with their mother’s partner for up to 1 year only. An additional 20 reported this relationship for up to 2 years, five for 3 years, and eight for 4 years.” He later adds that “only 19 spent at least five consecutive years together, and six cases spent 10 or more consecutive years together.”

How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000...."

Again to the readers of this Topix thread, Kimare attempts to cite statistical support for his bias on the basis of a study that paid internet respondents $20 each for filling out an online questionaire.

There was no personal interview by qualified professionals. And, as the Witherspoon group acknowledges, Regnerus has based his skewed findings on the basis of two groups of respondents, one 163 and the other 73.

The claim of 15,000 initial population is improperly cited. This number is the total that tried to take the offer of $20. But after screening out the respondents who did not meet Regnerus' criteria, only about 250 were accepted.

The Regnerus report remains insufficient in scope and misdirected in comprehension.

Mr. Kimare, I am not gay.

But, that is neither here nor there. What is pertinent to the conversation is that you continue to attempt to bracket people into your favorite stereotypes.

If millstones are being offered, you appear to be the one qualifying himself to do the hanging.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17115 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'rev', you are lying again. Nor are you the first gay to slander the study. Which is why you make opinions rather than posting a valid peer review. All those were addressed by a peer review and the study was FULLY exonerated.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/678...

...

Luke 17:1-2 (NASB)
1 He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!
2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Smile.
You continue to cite bogus reports. The comments from the Witherspoon Institute in defense of Regnerus' first bogus study are quoted as follows:

"... In his original article, he reported that an initially-screened population of 15,000 young adults aged 18-39 yielded a set of 163 who said their mothers had had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood.(There were only 73 who said this of their fathers.)

In his new article, Regnerus has re-sorted a dozen of the FGR cases into the MLR category (since in these cases the subjects reported that both parents had had same-sex relationships). Now focusing on his 175 subjects in the MLR category, he finds that fewer than half of them (85) ever lived with both their mother and her same-sex partner during their childhood.

But that low number tapers off dramatically when subjects report the length of the couple-headed period:“31 reported living with their mother’s partner for up to 1 year only. An additional 20 reported this relationship for up to 2 years, five for 3 years, and eight for 4 years.” He later adds that “only 19 spent at least five consecutive years together, and six cases spent 10 or more consecutive years together.”

How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000...."

Again, to the readers of this Topix thread, Kimare attempts to cite statistical support for his bias on the basis of a study that paid internet respondents $20 each for filling out an online questionaire.

There was no personal interview by qualified professionals. And, as the Witherspoon group acknowledges, Regnerus has based his skewed findings on the basis of two groups of respondents, one 163 and the other 73.

The claim of 15,000 initial population is improperly cited. This number is the approximate total that tried to take the offer of $20. But after screening out the respondents who did not meet Regnerus' criteria, only about 250 were used to make the initial report findings.

The Regnerus report remains insufficient in scope and misdirected in comprehension.

Mr. Kimare, I am not gay.

But, that is neither here nor there. What is pertinent to the conversation is that you continue to attempt to bracket people into your favorite stereotypes.

If millstones are being offered, you appear to be the one qualifying himself to do the hanging.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17117 Mar 14, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to cite bogus reports. the comments from the Witherspoon Institute in defense of Regnerus' first bogus study are quoted as follows:
"... In his original article, he reported that an initially-screened population of 15,000 young adults aged 18-39 yielded a set of 163 who said their mothers had had a same-sex relationship sometime during their childhood.(There were only 73 who said this of their fathers.)
In his new article, Regnerus has re-sorted a dozen of the FGR cases into the MLR category (since in these cases the subjects reported that both parents had had same-sex relationships). Now focusing on his 175 subjects in the MLR category, he finds that fewer than half of them (85) ever lived with both their mother and her same-sex partner during their childhood.
But that low number tapers off dramatically when subjects report the length of the couple-headed period:“31 reported living with their mother’s partner for up to 1 year only. An additional 20 reported this relationship for up to 2 years, five for 3 years, and eight for 4 years.” He later adds that “only 19 spent at least five consecutive years together, and six cases spent 10 or more consecutive years together.”
How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000...."
Again to the readers of this Topix thread, Kimare attempts to cite statistical support for his bias on the basis of a study that paid internet respondents $20 each for filling out an online questionaire.
There was no personal interview by qualified professionals. And, as the Witherspoon group acknowledges, Regnerus has based his skewed findings on the basis of two groups of respondents, one 163 and the other 73.
The claim of 15,000 initial population is improperly cited. This number is the total that tried to take the offer of $20. But after screening out the respondents who did not meet Regnerus' criteria, only about 250 were accepted.
The Regnerus report remains insufficient in scope and misdirected in comprehension.
Mr. Kimare, I am not gay.
But, that is neither here nor there. What is pertinent to the conversation is that you continue to attempt to bracket people into your favorite stereotypes.
If millstones are being offered, you appear to be the one qualifying himself to do the hanging.
Rev. Ken
'rev'

You stop your quotation right before this paragraph;

"I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships."

In other words, you deceived again...

Nor do you post a professional review of the study. I did, and you deliberately distorted it. Why would a legitimate cause need such tactics from a 'rev'???

Moreover, the study fully exposes it's study methods. The type of study that Regnerus conducted is fully acceptable, especially because of it's size. The lesbian studies purporting equality to natural families don't, except for one, and peer reviews expose the numerous biased methods it used.

The bottom line is the Regnerus study is the largest, latest, most scientific study to date on seven family types. Lesbian couples rate last, after single parents.

Oh, and one more thing. You lie. Consistently.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17118 Mar 14, 2013
Here are some sites that contradict your personal opinion;

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012...

R. Amato,“The Well-Being of Children with Gay and Lesbian Parents,” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 771–774, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012)

David J. Eggebeen,“What Can We Learn from Studies of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents?” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 775–778, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012)

Cynthia Osborne,“Further Comments on the Papers by Marks and Regnerus,” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 779–783, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012).

Want more?

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#17119 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'rev'
You stop your quotation right before this paragraph;
"I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting ...
Are you on the Regnerus payroll, or is he blowing you? Your continued ass kissing is completely irrational.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17120 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
'rev'
You stop your quotation right before this paragraph;
"I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships."
In other words, you deceived again...
Nor do you post a professional review of the study. I did, and you deliberately distorted it. Why would a legitimate cause need such tactics from a 'rev'???
Moreover, the study fully exposes it's study methods. The type of study that Regnerus conducted is fully acceptable, especially because of it's size. The lesbian studies purporting equality to natural families don't, except for one, and peer reviews expose the numerous biased methods it used.
The bottom line is the Regnerus study is the largest, latest, most scientific study to date on seven family types. Lesbian couples rate last, after single parents.
Oh, and one more thing. You lie. Consistently.
Smile.
Excuse me, Mr. Kimare.

I did not deceive. You posted the link and anyone can go read it.

I specifically avoided quoting the paragraph you note because it does not cite statistics or facts. Instead, this paragraph is full of the writer's own opinions and excuses for the obvious shallowness of the Regnerus conclusions.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

Which is better for a child: Should a parentless child be abandoned to the street and encouraged to forage on his or her own?
or
Should a parentless child be placed in an orphanage.

Which provides the better rearing environment?

???

Likewise, which is better for a child?:

To be raised by a single, divorced, now celibate, biological parent who is the actual mother or father and who is also either lesbian or gay?

Or, to be taken away from the single parent as a ward of the state and raised by two heterosexual parents, having been placed in their care by adoption?

???

What does the Regnerus report say?

As to your assertions, they are your own opinions. There is no "bottom line" to the Regnerus studies. They are paid internet poll questionaire based. The conclusions drawn are flawed.

What's more, the report makes assumptions based upon a supposed "ranking" of stereotypical family life without sufficient participation by specific respondents.

But, no qualitative conclusions can be drawn by such a study. Unless a full psychological assessment is made of each of the individual adult respondents through extensive personal interview by a group of qualified professionals, no definitive conclusion can be drawn about the effectiveness and substantive nature of the rearing environment.

The Regnerus scope goes nowhere near such an essential depth of research.

...

As for lying, your continued assertions and accusations have no foundation in truth. So, who is lying here?

Me, because I do not accept your assumptions? Or YOU, because you say so?

Let the reader of these posts understand.

Rev. Ken
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#17122 Mar 14, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, Mr. Kimare.
I did not deceive. You posted the link and anyone can go read it.
I specifically avoided quoting the paragraph you note because it does not cite statistics or facts. Instead, this paragraph is full of the writer's own opinions and excuses for the obvious shallowness of the Regnerus conclusions.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Which is better for a child: Should a parentless child be abandoned to the street and encouraged to forage on his or her own?
or
Should a parentless child be placed in an orphanage.
Which provides the better rearing environment?
???
Likewise, which is better for a child?:
To be raised by a single, divorced, now celibate, biological parent who is the actual mother or father and who is also either lesbian or gay?
Or, to be taken away from the single parent as a ward of the state and raised by two heterosexual parents, having been placed in their care by adoption?
???
What does the Regnerus report say?
As to your assertions, they are your own opinions. There is no "bottom line" to the Regnerus studies. They are paid internet poll questionaire based. The conclusions drawn are flawed.
What's more, the report makes assumptions based upon a supposed "ranking" of stereotypical family life without sufficient participation by specific respondents.
But, no qualitative conclusions can be drawn by such a study. Unless a full psychological assessment is made of each of the individual adult respondents through extensive personal interview by a group of qualified professionals, no definitive conclusion can be drawn about the effectiveness and substantive nature of the rearing environment.
The Regnerus scope goes nowhere near such an essential depth of research.
...
As for lying, your continued assertions and accusations have no foundation in truth. So, who is lying here?
Me, because I do not accept your assumptions? Or YOU, because you say so?
Let the reader of these posts understand.
Rev. Ken
Here's what the American Sociological Association had to say about the Regnerus 'study.'

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...

Of course I'm so sure KiMerde thinks he knows better than the ASA.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17123 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Here are some sites that contradict your personal opinion;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012...
R. Amato,“The Well-Being of Children with Gay and Lesbian Parents,” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 771–774, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012)
David J. Eggebeen,“What Can We Learn from Studies of Children Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents?” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 775–778, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012)
Cynthia Osborne,“Further Comments on the Papers by Marks and Regnerus,” Social Science Research, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 779–783, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/... (accessed August 24, 2012).
Want more?
Smile.
Regnerus...

DISMISSED

NEXT
reffef

Pittsburgh, PA

#17124 Mar 14, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………
I doubt the word existed in the Bible in them pld days,,the Bible has been edited with modern words

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17125 Mar 15, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, Mr. Kimare.
I did not deceive. You posted the link and anyone can go read it.
I specifically avoided quoting the paragraph you note because it does not cite statistics or facts. Instead, this paragraph is full of the writer's own opinions and excuses for the obvious shallowness of the Regnerus conclusions.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Which is better for a child: Should a parentless child be abandoned to the street and encouraged to forage on his or her own?
or
Should a parentless child be placed in an orphanage.
Which provides the better rearing environment?
???
Likewise, which is better for a child?:
To be raised by a single, divorced, now celibate, biological parent who is the actual mother or father and who is also either lesbian or gay?
Or, to be taken away from the single parent as a ward of the state and raised by two heterosexual parents, having been placed in their care by adoption?
???
What does the Regnerus report say?
As to your assertions, they are your own opinions. There is no "bottom line" to the Regnerus studies. They are paid internet poll questionaire based. The conclusions drawn are flawed.
What's more, the report makes assumptions based upon a supposed "ranking" of stereotypical family life without sufficient participation by specific respondents.
But, no qualitative conclusions can be drawn by such a study. Unless a full psychological assessment is made of each of the individual adult respondents through extensive personal interview by a group of qualified professionals, no definitive conclusion can be drawn about the effectiveness and substantive nature of the rearing environment.
The Regnerus scope goes nowhere near such an essential depth of research.
...
As for lying, your continued assertions and accusations have no foundation in truth. So, who is lying here?
Me, because I do not accept your assumptions? Or YOU, because you say so?
Let the reader of these posts understand.
Rev. Ken
I gave a list of lies, and you address only one by lying about your reason. At the least, you could have included his opinion so people could judge between his and your opinion. You didn't, because his makes perfect sense and fits the conclusions of the study.

As to your questions, are you serious? Why would you pose such stupid questions? Very rarely are circumstances limited to an either/or answer. Those most certainly are not.

My motive is to pursue the very best for those children. Yours motive is a foolish attempt to allow gay couples to look natural at the expense of the child. It is another example of why I call you 'rev', and the passage I quoted applies in Spirit and truth.

Again, you fail to post a professional review of the study, and foolishly attempt to misrepresent an accepted and common methodology. It only exposes a corrupt motive and ignorance.

The bottom line is this; The Regnerus study goes deeper than any other study to date with the largest and most scientific study of seven family types. Lesbian couples rated last. AFTER single parents. Gay couples did not even register...

Yes, let the reader understand these posts.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17126 Mar 15, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what the American Sociological Association had to say about the Regnerus 'study.'
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/03...
Of course I'm so sure KiMerde thinks he knows better than the ASA.
Just one question.

Where was the ASA when faulty, biased and clearly unscientific studies that promoted homosexual families were being promoted?

Not one word of question. Instead? They knowingly supported them.

Sorry hon, they clear lost their credibility.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17127 Mar 15, 2013

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 3 min Jonah1 36
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 7 min GUMP locator 21
Pope chooses a moderate for Chicago archbishop 17 min Fundie Taliban 14
Justice Kagan performs her first same-sex wedding 21 min Fundie Taliban 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 28 min Cali Girl 2014 49,931
First Gay Couple Marries In Coahuila, Mexico 31 min Fundie Taliban 3
Young, Evangelical, and Pro-GayBy Gene Robinson 35 min Fundie Taliban 9
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••