Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Mrs Anblomi]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot draw valid conclusions about parents that were NOT studied, you flaming dumbass. Research Methods 301... check into it.

You stop that right now young man, you're dishonoring the family, and our name with your insults and crude disgusting spelling of Anblomi. Do you think you're funny? Well you're most certainly not. Your father and I want this nonsense to stop right now....and you're to be nice to other people here from now on!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Mrs Anblomi wrote:

<quoted text>
You stop that right now young man, you're dishonoring the family, and our name with your insults and crude disgusting spelling of Anblomi. Do you think you're funny? Well you're most certainly not. Your father and I want this nonsense to stop right now....and you're to be nice to other people here from now on!

Yes, Mrs. Anblomi, we sympathize with you and do not blame you for Neil's outrageous vulgarity and crudeness.

Some children turn out bad even though they come from fine loving homes like yours. Perhaps he'll grow up some day and be responsible and sober.

We wish you good luck.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Marriage is good for society. All marriages.

Opposite sex, same sex, incest and poly are all marriage and all deserve the same respect and consideration.

There is no "one" right way!

[SameOs]

Nothing new, go away.

[KiMare]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the best argument you have against SSM?

No.

This is one of many;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too is simply silly.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.

Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.

Smile.

[Big D]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
No.
This is one of many;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too is simply silly.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
Smile.

So you would say that all couples that do not have children are not actually married.

You just lost the entire argument... again

In fact you have lost the argument so many times now that states are falling away from your stupid argument like dominoes

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
"Every study sets numerous perimeters. If you don't like his, do your own. None of the other family types are whining, stop yours."
That's YOUR rebuttal? Are you kidding me? His methodology was flawed. It had nothing to do with his "perimeters." Way to prove you know zilch about research methods.

Every study sets parameters on participants, time, topics of study to name a few. Perhaps you might have more to learn about research methods???

Regnerus established parameters for SEVEN family types. Gays are the only ones whining. Even Slate magazine commented on the illegitimate ad homoan attacks. Their advice? Produce legitimate studies that counter Regnerus.

However, as of now, the Regnerus study is the largest, latest most scientific study to date on family types. Lesbian couples ranked last, after single parents...

Oh, and natural parents ranked first. Again.

Smile.

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot draw valid conclusions about parents that were NOT studied, you flaming dumbass. Research Methods 301... check into it.

Step parent situations are not well studied???

Orientation makes a difference?

Well, it may, but according to the latest, largest and most scientific study on family types to date, it is an extremely negative difference...

Smirk.

[Neil Andblowme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Every study sets parameters on participants, time, topics of study to name a few. Perhaps you might have more to learn about research methods???

There are scientific standards, ya know? Each scientist doesn't get to make up his own rules to suit himself. Variables MUST be accounted for, or you have nothing. You really have no idea, do ya? Didn't you take any social sciences in college?

Comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. You can't draw conclusions about gay couples if you didn't study any. You can't compare long term hetero couples to short term gay couples with any validity. Do you understand? One would have no way of knowing if it was a difference in time or a difference in sexual orientation that caused the results.

[KiMare]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
So you would say that all couples that do not have children are not actually married.
You just lost the entire argument... again
In fact you have lost the argument so many times now that states are falling away from your stupid argument like dominoes

Said no such thing.

I said married couples without children are like barren apple trees.

Gay couples are like desolate walnut trees hanging apples on their branches demanding to be apple trees.

I've seen dominoes fall. States are not falling like dominoes.

What grade are you in???

Smirk.

[Neil Andblowme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Step parent situations are not well studied???
Orientation makes a difference?
Well, it may, but according to the latest, largest and most scientific study on family types to date, it is an extremely negative difference...
Smirk.

Did they specifically study gay step parents??????????

[Neil Andblowme]

KiMare wrote:

However, as of now, the Regnerus study is the largest, latest most scientific study to date on family types. Lesbian couples ranked last, after single parents...
Oh, and natural parents ranked first. Again.
Smile.

Nope. Not scientific. No validity. Data did not support conclusions.

[Neil Andblowme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Said no such thing.
I said married couples without children are like barren apple trees.
Gay couples are like desolate walnut trees hanging apples on their branches demanding to be apple trees.
I've seen dominoes fall. States are not falling like dominoes.
What grade are you in???
Smirk.

Yeah.... we've all seen trees hang apples on themselves.

You are a goofball.

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Did they specifically study gay step parents??????????

First you demand that gay couples are the same as heterosexual couples, now you want to separate them???

Can you make up your mind Nelly???

Smirk.

[Pietro Armando]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Every study sets parameters on participants, time, topics of study to name a few. Perhaps you might have more to learn about research methods???
Regnerus established parameters for SEVEN family types. Gays are the only ones whining. Even Slate magazine commented on the illegitimate ad homoan attacks. Their advice? Produce legitimate studies that counter Regnerus.
However, as of now, the Regnerus study is the largest, latest most scientific study to date on family types. Lesbian couples ranked last, after single parents...
Oh, and natural parents ranked first. Again.
Smile.

Is there really a reason to think otherwise? What adult, who was raised by his/her own married biological parents in a stable home, looks back and thinks, "Gee, I wish Mom and divorced and I was raised by....."?

Are there supporters of SSM on this thread who think this way?

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>There are scientific standards, ya know? Each scientist doesn't get to make up his own rules to suit himself. Variables MUST be accounted for, or you have nothing. You really have no idea, do ya? Didn't you take any social sciences in college?
Comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. You can't draw conclusions about gay couples if you didn't study any. You can't compare long term hetero couples to short term gay couples with any validity. Do you understand? One would have no way of knowing if it was a difference in time or a difference in sexual orientation that caused the results.

We were talking about parameters. Now you are shifting to standards because you were proved ignorant about parameters???

Guess what, you are ignorant about standards too?

Here is a study of gay family study standards, it is not good...

"In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children."

Perhaps you want to shift subjects again...

Smirk.

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Not scientific. No validity. Data did not support conclusions.

Denial Nelly, simply denial.

Smile.

[KiMare]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah.... we've all seen trees hang apples on themselves.
You are a goofball.

Didn't you say you saw states fall like dominoes???

Snicker smile.

[Rose_NoHo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
That, dumb-ass, is because they aren't the same. Remember when they separated boys and girls in school ? Guess why ?

Did they separate you from people who weren't freakish looking? Or were you normal looking as a child?

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>You think I don't know US servicewomen have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? The article says nothing about cause of death, sometimes illness, accident and negligence kill more people than hostile action.
More than 1522 US servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan under Obama's leadership since 2009, less than a third that number were killed under Bush's leadership during the first eight years of the war.
Putting women in combat units means training injuries and deaths, even if they never get to combat.

Girl cooties?

Brian_G wrote:

Then, there's the effect on male troops fighting and training alongside...
Obama is a disaster as a military leader.

Do you con dumbs get bonus points for mentioning Obama's name, and the more off topic the mention, the more points you get?