So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Grou...

So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

There are 18015 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 17, 2012, titled So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#11588 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexua...
"A new study published in the prestigious journal Pediatrics followed a group of children born to lesbian mothers for nearly 25 years to chart their psychological health and development. Previous studies have found no significant differences in psychological health between children reared by lesbian or heterosexual parents [1-4]. This led the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a report in support of same-sex parents raising children [5].
This new study, by Dr. Gartell and Dr. Bos, was launched in 1986 with a goal of following children of planned lesbian families into adulthood. They described the families as "planned" because the children were conceived with donor insemination opposed to being conceived with a man from a previous relationship. After nearly 25 years, the authors have reported the results on the psychological adjustment of the offspring. They measures psychological adjustment with the widely used and validated Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Compared to established norms, the children of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence. They were rated significantly lower in social problems, rule breaking, and aggressive problems."
I also have the study and it's methodology blondie.
It still doesn't say that gay people are better parents.
This is a study of lesbian mothers. That's only half of "gays." And we all know mothers are usually the better parent anyway....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#11589 Nov 16, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to share, douche bag?
First, I once again desecrate your claim. You said there never was a claim that lesbians are better parents. I proved you are a idiot and a liar.

Again.

This is getting boring...

STUDY OF LESBIAN 'FAMILIES' with reviews

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content...

Alex I. Kartashov, biostatistician
Policy Analysis Inc., Brookline, MA
Dear colleagues,
I have read the article of Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents".
I am surprised with the lack of any attepmt of the authors to address the very important factors in the study.
As it can be easily seen from Table 1, the populations in comparison are very different in race composition, socio-economic status of participants, and region of the country. The population of chidren from the conventional sample (Achenbach Normative CBCL Sample) has many times more minorities and many more children from the South.
It was shown not once that the outcomes of the study are strongly dependent on the above mentioned factors, and exactly in the direction that the study reveals.
Only gender and group (NLLFS vs.Achenbach Normative CBCL Sample) were used as predictors. I can not understand wny the authors did not make proper adjustments for other factors. They do mention it as one of the limitations of the study. It would be very easy to match the study population with the appropriate control population. Other way to treat the problem would be to adjust for the factors of race, region and socio- economic status within the MANOVA analysis (although the sample size becomes critical in this case).
Also, I am surprised that the editorial board and reviewers did not pay attention to such an obvious deficiency of the study.
In my opinion, above mentioned creates a strong doubt in the conclusions of the study.
Respectfully, Alex I. Kartashov, Ph.D.

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#11590 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse..."
Smirking look of pity.
Psst.. you just proved yourself wrong with that "usually"....

“What came 1st? Stupid or bigot”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#11591 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse..."
Blonde denial.
It's an assault first, sex second, just like your quote says.
It involves sex, it's the nature of the attack, just like I said.
But an attack, nonetheless.
The purpose of rape is the attack, not the "sex."

Rape is not ABOUT sex.

You're a F*king pig. Sadly, I think you even know that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#11592 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse..."
Smirking look of pity.
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
Psst.. you just proved yourself wrong with that "usually"....
If you go to Wikipedia, you will see the other types of sexual acts on the other side of 'usually'.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#11593 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse..."
Smirking look of pity.
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an assault first, sex second, just like your quote says.
It involves sex, it's the nature of the attack, just like I said.
But an attack, nonetheless.
The purpose of rape is the attack, not the "sex."
Rape is not ABOUT sex.
You're a F*king pig. Sadly, I think you even know that.
Blondie, read again.

It's 'sexual' BEFORE it's assault.

Smirking big time...

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#11594 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
[Insert lies and denial here]
You have yet to reply to my post, I guess you're admitting that you're just in denial about all the facts.

Here's the link to the page with my reply, in case you've chosen to ignore it...you can't ignore and deny the existence of facts forever.

http://m.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC735...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#11595 Nov 16, 2012
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
So your friends (and you) put food on the table by helping to get the number 1 killer of people into the marketplace.
Do you not realize that if no one helped in the process of getting tobacco to market (even so they can put food on their table this winter), your father and many of your relatives would not have died a slow death because of it?
And you sit there and justify your role in killing future relatives and generations?
You're the hypocrite to beat all, Patricia.
Next to war production, anything to do with tobacco is likely the most immoral industry known to man. What other product that man provides, if used as it is intended, will kill at least 2/3 of its consumers? That should be worth a death penalty for anyone engaged in it at any level (though I do not approve of capital punishment), yet we still permit it to be done. Tobacco kills far more than wars, as usually the death rate is around 10% of the fighting forces, give or take.

At least we don't have the days of not long ago when a smoker would be deeply offended if you didn't provide him with an ashtray and allow him to smoke in your home. I recall one asshole who came into my office, before my company implemented a no smoking rule, and sat down across from me, turned my 'Thank you for not smoking' sign on its face and lit up. I didn't bother to pull an ashtray out for him though, just let him sit there and try to figure out what to do with the ashes after they got so long that they had to be put somewhere.

If I had been a more aggressive person, I should have immediately got up from my desk, grabbed him by the collar knocked his head against the wall a couple times, and then told him to get the hell out of my office and not come back. Of course though since I was in banking and he was a client, that would not have gone well with my employer.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#11596 Nov 16, 2012
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, I'm not a drug addict.
And marijuana is not addictive. Proven fact.
I have never tried it, and i have heard that too, but I have a friend, a former druggie, who claims that anyone who tells you that marijuana is safe is a liar, for several reasons. Almost everyone who gets into harder drugs started with marijuana, because though it may not itself be addictive it tends to make people get into the habit of wanting some illicit drug to get high, or down, and so they naturally graduate to very addictive drugs. He also tells me that the marijuana sold today is much more potent than it was when he was into it, and often laced with other drugs, so that you will get addicted to the other drugs.

I don't know the truth, just relaying what he tells me. He, having almost ruined his life on drugs, is now paranoid about taking even prescribed meds. Personally I kind of frown on the whole drug scene since, because it has always been illegal almost everywhere, it tends to point to sort of low life people. I know that is unfair, as some people who I love or loved very much, had tried some drugs.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#11597 Nov 16, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never tried it, and i have heard that too, but I have a friend, a former druggie, who claims that anyone who tells you that marijuana is safe is a liar, for several reasons. Almost everyone who gets into harder drugs started with marijuana, because though it may not itself be addictive it tends to make people get into the habit of wanting some illicit drug to get high, or down, and so they naturally graduate to very addictive drugs. He also tells me that the marijuana sold today is much more potent than it was when he was into it, and often laced with other drugs, so that you will get addicted to the other drugs.
I don't know the truth, just relaying what he tells me. He, having almost ruined his life on drugs, is now paranoid about taking even prescribed meds. Personally I kind of frown on the whole drug scene since, because it has always been illegal almost everywhere, it tends to point to sort of low life people. I know that is unfair, as some people who I love or loved very much, had tried some drugs.
Though some people might move on to other drugs from marijuana, that's only because they are stupid enough to convince themselves it is safe. I admit, I've used pot, but only 2 or 3 times a year. I liked the weird and happy mood it put me in, but I'm not addicted to it for the simple reason that I see no need to use it.
Using marijuana is about as recreational as going to see a comedy in theaters. Though the smoke is not the greatest for you, as is any smoke, it still isn't stuffed full of tar and other chemicals like cigarettes. But then again, by simply baking it, you get rid of the negative effects of smoke.

There have been deaths caused by alcohol poisoning and cigarettes raise the risk of getting cancer. Marijuana has never killed anyone.
If you are irresponsible and drive while not sober, then that can kill, but so can texting while driving.
Does that mean texting should be illegal? No, that means laws should be put in place, as they have for using a phone or being under the influence of alcohol while driving, to promote responsible thinking.

Then again, anyone can get addicted to anything. One can get addicted to chocolate, eating healthy, exercising, and so on...does that mean each of those things are addictive? The large majority of those who use marijuana don't get addicted.
This is why marijuana is not an addictive drug.
Though if someone does get addicted, it's to the feeling, not the drug itself. That is also why some choose to do other drugs, because they want the feeling to be stronger.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11598 Nov 16, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides that, if the bible DIDN'T say that Earth was flat, then why did the ones saying it was a sphere get prosecuted and punished for their theories?
There you go with that logic again.:)

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11599 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about two extra terrestrial beings. Who knows how they might be seeing the world?
Only a blonde ho would assert that incident says the world was flat.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
What a perfect example of faithless idiots parroting gay twirl comments!
You take about 40 authors, writing over 2,000 years and box them ALL into a perspective of the world during Columbus's time? Really???
Moses was educated in Egypt. Do you know the Egyptian 'view' of the world at that time?
Your only reason to focus on the Bible is to desecrate it in defense of immorality. You WILL look like a idiot if you try to be a theologian.
The subject of the Bible is God and the soul of man. It is not a book about science.
It's the fundies who insist on the "either/or" view of the buy-bull. They aren't willing to say an absurd story like the one about Noah's Ark is a myth, but the buy-bull is still a good moral guide.(Actually, the buy-bull is a HORRIBLE moral guide, one that says a woman can be tortured to death for being raped.)
KiMare wrote:
The references to science only affirm it's supernatural origin.
Isaiah 40:22 (NJB)
He who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, the inhabitants of which are like grasshoppers, stretches out the heavens like a cloth, spreads them out like a tent to live in.
SMirk.
A circle is a flat shape. And the heavens aren't like a cloth nor a tent, they are just about all empty space.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#11600 Nov 16, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides that, if the bible DIDN'T say that Earth was flat, then why did the ones saying it was a sphere get prosecuted and punished for their theories?
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go with that logic again.:)
1. I showed where the Bible DID say the earth was a sphere.

2. You both showed that people say stupid things about the Bible.

Smile.

Again.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11601 Nov 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read my posts, I am not trying to prove anything in the Bible, I am simply pointing out inaccurate statements about the Bible.
I also enjoy pointing out incidents that fly in the face of making the Bible simply fiction.
My original purpose here was to understand the issues. It now is to confront denial and deceit. Gay couples can never qualify for the identity of marriage. GLBT is a genetic defect. That is not hate, it is fact
You call yourself a monster mutation, a genetic defect. Do you think your parents should have aborted you?
The world would be a slightly better place if they had. That is not hate, it is fact. So, do you think they should have scraped you from the womb?
:)

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11602 Nov 16, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
and you are looking at it from YOU OWN PERSONAL thoughts.
not the eyes of God.
God says when a man lies with another male as he would lie with a woman IT IS AN ABOMINATION.
Then a BJ should be OK. That's not as with a woman.
United in faith wrote:
the bible says homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor.
so yes homosexuality IS as sexually immoral as pedophilia, beastiality, incest, rape, adultry, or anything else God lists as outside the 'norm' of His design for mankind.
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality.
Then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11603 Nov 16, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
and had they not of been dealing in pot they would not of died when it went bad now would they?

What if they made the deal over a cell phone? Would that mean cell phones are dangerous?
United in faith wrote:
i'm sorry but i don't understand anyone who tries to justify drugs at all.
thats like someone saying 'so what if i smoke 2 pack a day' its my right and it hasn't hurt me yet'.
thats called STUPID logic.
It is their right.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11604 Nov 16, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
you got that right there is no shortage of stupidity.
the bible does NOT claim the earth is flat.
YOU scripture perverters do.
you silly person, if i told you that your dumbness was as vast as the east is from the west, that wouldn't mean the earth was flat either.
Satan took Jesus to the top of a mountain and showed him ALL of the kingdoms of earth. That would only be possible if the earth were flat. Can't you see that?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11605 Nov 16, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
what? something is ONLY wrong if there is a non consenting party?
well then i guess as long as a entire band of theives are in agreement its fine and dandy to rob and steal.
Well, Einstein, the non consenting party would be the person whose stuff gets stolen...
Um, duh.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11606 Nov 16, 2012
Eddie Haskel wrote:
... Besides the majority of H.I.V. and AID's infections world wide are of a heterosexual nature! Bottom line just another bigoted statement from yet another ignorant loser! Glad I could help!
Liar!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#11607 Nov 16, 2012
Samatha wrote:
Brenda Lee Johnson Wrote:
I guess it's just a consequence that every single organization Gay's have been affiliated with winds up in wide spread homosexual child molestation, all of them, ALL OF THEM! Millions and millions! Big Brother, The Boy Scouts, thousands of cases in The Boy Scouts, youth camps,sporting programs and especially sporting programs,Sandusky, Bernie Fine are the most prominent. The Catholic Church, thousands of boys molested by homosexual pedophiles.
Then we take a look at other countries where homosexuality where laws and restrictions have been relaxed and what do we see?
Gays boycotting to have the age for anal sex with boys lower to 14 and even 13. No, Gays are not pedophiles.The one thing I think we have demonstrated is what deceptive liars Gays are, The true bastions of evil.
Let's say for the sake of argument that's true. It would NOT be pedophilia, since 13 and 14 year old boys have typically gone though puberty.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 3 min lides 398
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 min Respect71 25,821
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 18 min nhjeff 8,784
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 20 min lides 1,181
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 25 min Lea 1
News Will clerk issue gay marriage licenses after co... 28 min NorCal Native 5
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 44 min True Christian wi... 10
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 45 min Believer in God a... 3,122
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 1 hr WeTheSheeple 39
More from around the web