First Australian gay couples to legal...

First Australian gay couples to legally marry

There are 1727 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Dec 5, 2013, titled First Australian gay couples to legally marry. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

A state lawmaker and his partner plan to fly 3,500 kilometers across Australia to become one of the nation's first same-sex couples to legally marry at an after-midnight ceremony in the Australian capital.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1482 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Now, once again, why are the study methods not available for the Australian study?
The Aussies were first to produce peer-reviewable research
http://www.advocate.com/society/modern-famili...
Kat

Brisbane, Australia

#1483 Jan 28, 2014
Tom,

There's no point conversing with these halfwits. As a straight woman with a gay brother, it's obvious to me homosexuals, like heterosexuals, vary in intelligence and character. We are all individuals and Australians.

It makes me wonder why these heterosexual men spend so much time thinking about homosexuals. It disturbs me that their fixation is of sex as well, as if that is all that makes up a person.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1484 Jan 28, 2014
Kat wrote:
Tom,
There's no point conversing with these halfwits. As a straight woman with a gay brother, it's obvious to me homosexuals, like heterosexuals, vary in intelligence and character. We are all individuals and Australians.
It makes me wonder why these heterosexual men spend so much time thinking about homosexuals. It disturbs me that their fixation is of sex as well, as if that is all that makes up a person.
Men who spend so much time thinking about homosexuals have half-gay private parts that causes them to suffer from homoPHOBIA (fear of their own genitalia)
.
Talking about it helps ease the pain but not the pressure

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#1485 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Regnerus based the judgment on the opinion of the adult child.
There was a program here where children from SS parents appeared with their parents to affirm that they were happy being raised by parents of the same sex - I think as you said - the questions need to be asked of adult children. As an adult you can be reflective, as a child you are totally in the situation - it may well be that those children, as adults, will reflect on their childhood as positively as they did when children, but I think the adult reflection will be more accurate.
Children are understandably loyal, they love their parents and are unlikely to be critical and, as children, they haven't yet experienced the full breadth of their childhood experience. A friend told me that her mother remarried when she was just 10 years old, she was left home as soon as she could which pre-empted some difficulties for her as a young person. Years later she spoke with her mother, who said,'I asked you if you were happy when I married your step-father and you said yes', to which my friend replied,'I was only 10 years old, what did you expect me to say'?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1487 Jan 28, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
A worthwhile project - positive male role models can be found - grandfathers, uncles, etc.- if one is fortunate enough to have a supporting extended family.
It's not a matter of "fortune", but one of the defining characteristics of a functional family. Healthy people build mutually supportive groups.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1488 Jan 28, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
So no condemnation of those degenerate gays who bought a baby for the sole purpose of abuse? Those two monsters were interviewed years ago to illustrate how difficult it is for gay men to become parents and they both said how important it was to them to have the same opportunity to become a family as heterosexual couples. No, what was important to them was easy access to a poor innocent so they could pursue their sick activities with impunity. I doubt you could find that interview now, it will have 'disappeared' from the public domain - in light of their subsequent activities, not the best publicity for 'gay' parents.
See post #1409

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1489 Jan 28, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
Where might you suggest?
Central and Southern U.S.A., and rural communities everywhere.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1490 Jan 28, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
True - fortunately, but it does illustrate that heterosexual couples are not alone in having children for the wrong reasons - in fact producing ranch-hands or whatever it was seems quite humane in contrast. Where even one example belies your contention that SS couples have children because they 'really want to raise a child'- in contrast to heterosexual couples whose agenda is apparently less worthy - then your contention is wrong. No one has a monopoly on sound agenda here, neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals - horrid people are found everywhere.
Of course ... when you state "nobody" with respect to a group taken as a whole. But that isn't how such stories are used regarding gay people is it?

Do you find incidents of child abuse used as a rationale for denying parenthood to heteros?

The Fallacy of Composition is applied to us a liberally and profligately as butter to a scone.
bnm

Sydney, Australia

#1491 Jan 28, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we'd certainly be able to get an unbiased point of view from you then ....NOT! Is your queer brother going to russia for the olympics,...still a bit of normality operating there, he may get a quick trip into the real world, why don't you do everyone a favour and go with him?.
LOL! Vladimir wouldn't have the filthy cvnt!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1492 Jan 28, 2014
tom wrote:
<quoted text>
The only reason this dyke gets out of bed is to post in this thread!
Wrong on all counts.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1493 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church I pastored in HI was attended by a number of people from all over, without family close. We became a family away from family.
The Church I attend now does the same thing. That is not unusual.
That's impossible. They're not a real family, and calling them so is just plain wrong. Such aggregations defy the Darwinian imperatives, and are inherently sick and a threat to long-established relationship categories.

Relationship categories are cross-cultural constraints, and designed by nature to keep people separate and in conflict.

How do I know this is true?

Because ... YOU TOLD ME SO.
bnm

Sydney, Australia

#1494 Jan 28, 2014
So funny how the bitchy little queers are getting all flustered & uptight about the glorious reforms put in place against their "queer nation" agendas by Uncle Vladimir!

One more place where they can't manipulate the media or Government.

Of all the places where the world would awaken against these filthy perverts I never thought it would be Mother Russia!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1495 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, the personal attack instead of addressing his criticism!
Can't do it, can you.
snyper and you take your bigotry straight.
While his paragraph was a mess, "Tom"s facts regarding that "researcher", his subjects, and gay people in general are accurate and correct.

The conceptual design parameters of the survey battery was flawed and biased from the start, lacked validity scales, and were designed to meet an agenda, not scientific enquiry.

Thus far, no one in the Social Sciences is willing to replicate his findings because they don't agree with the design itself. The consensus in the profession is that it's bad work not worth the time and expense of replication.

Further, it did not meet the three prime reliability criteria: Test-Retest, Inter-Test and Inter-Testor reliabilities.

Lastly, "Tom"s mention that the work was funded, overseen AND reviewed by an agent of the Funding organization, not by the open peers of the Social Sciences profession.

It's not bigotry, crosspatch. it's the professional standards of the Social Science disciplines.

Your lack of knowledge and imprecision of thought and assessment means that you never get to work on my airplane.

Again, you are completely welcome to pack your own parachute, though.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1496 Jan 28, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
And of that 30,000 what percentage of those were SS couples,.09%? A decent social scientist would go where the study subjects could be found. Regenerus looked for them where his funders wanted him to look instead. FACT! And his so called study therefore failed but made a great propaganda piece for his funders.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !!!

Bravo !!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1498 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And was there a control group for the Aussie study?
What was the numbers between the different family groups?
What percentage were lesbian and what were gay?
What length of time was the study for?
Regnerus was clear on all these things.
Answer if you can.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Wasn't that the criticism of the Regnerus study, that it was published before peer review?
However, I'm not asking for peer review. I'm asking for study methodology. That should always be included with the conclusions.
Where is it???
Smirk.
As mentioned before, his criteria for identifying subjects as gay and lesbian was flawed from the start, and no effort was made to ensure that the selected samples were demographically representative of the population plenum.

Jumping to your mention of "conclusions", he includes in his evaluation subjects defined as particulate in both definition and results.

Fallacy of Composition ... again.

None of this matters. Our opposition has included him in their case before the SCotUS. As far as his admissibility as an "expert witness" is concerned, they are going to spit him out quite resoundingly. His kind of shenanigans don't hold up under heightened scrutiny.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1499 Jan 28, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the study and you'll find it.
One problem with the Regnerus study was the published peer review members had strong ties to the funder of the supposed study. That and there were no SS couples in the study, merely people who had even a single same sex encounter while raising children.
Very correct.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1500 Jan 28, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have much faith in surveys - they are used in order to prove, or disprove a particular contention and are conducted in such a way as to achieve that purpose.
In the Social Sciences, surveys are a VERY preliminary tool used to determine if an actual study is warranted ... NOT a study in itself. To say the least, they are flawed because of the self-reportage nature of the activity. The most scientific aspect of surveys is in the numbers, but still they only really count how many said what. No objective data. The use of validity cross-questioning and rephrasing can be helpful in determining how honest each subject was being, limited of course by their capacity for self-insight and relative absence of denial and displacement factors; and V-scales can be assistive in properly weighting the testimonies collected ... but that is all they remain ... testimonies.

A survey is NOT a study.

It's a common colloquial error, even among many who should know better.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1501 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What the survey exposed is the rarity of stable SS homes.
How could it do so when it didn't accurately identify SS homes to begin with, but rather used a skewed criteria for selection ?

It's called a "false premise".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1502 Jan 28, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Regnerus based the judgment on the opinion of the adult child.
Nope.

But you were correct about "judgement".

That was the bias of the subject selection.
bnm

Sydney, Australia

#1503 Jan 28, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
The Arabs are'nt too pleased with them either, it's either the rope or a quick beheading, who'd have thoughtthe Arabs would be ahead of the game.
LOL! Maybe we should go on a fact finding trip overseas to get some tips on how to rid our backyard of the kiddy fiddling rainbow filth!

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
News Kentucky clerka s defiance on same-sex marriage... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 10
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... (Mar '15) 1 hr Zorri 7,294
News Another KY clerk vows to not issue same sex mar... 3 hr SacrificeInTheNam... 17
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr unigenito 34,845
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 5 hr NoahLikesPi 377
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 5 hr NoahLikesPi 1,277
News Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in chu... 9 hr Mikey 29
More from around the web