Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
531
Support
 
270

Vote now in Greeneville:

A of W

Smyrna, TN

#3133 Oct 29, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, since you can't be bothered with facts...
The judge's name is Vaughn Walker.
He and other gay men and women actually work in this country in a variety of fields. Some work in fields that are of particular interest to them.
It's kind of like when battered women become therapists who then work almost exclusively with battered women. Or when a college athlete becomes a coach.
Why would it surprise you that a Lesbian did a study of Lesbian households?
Her data stood up to the peer review needed in order to have her findings published in professional journals. These journals don't just accept a submission and run it. Maybe you don't know about professional journals.
You seem to think that gays are so militant or untrustworthy that we would do anything to get our way.
The truth is that gay people will not risk their livelihood or reputation any more than straight people.
There are hundreds (thousands?) of women judges in this country. Should they be forced to recuse themselves if a woman comes before them?
Should judges who have had divorces be forced to recuse themselves from divorce cases?
Should a scholarly article about the importance of faith (written by a Christian) be dismissed because he might have an ulterior motive?
Bottom line--you are in denial. That's what it's called when you deny reality. When you question the reality of the world around you because it doesn't fit with your previous way of thinking.
Go get help for your denial and take that other guy (the one who routinely speaks for God) with you.
I like your quote, "You seem to think that gays are so militant or untrustworthy that we would do anything to get our way". You have proven that single handedly.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3134 Oct 29, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>I like your quote, "You seem to think that gays are so militant or untrustworthy that we would do anything to get our way". You have proven that single handedly.
What, exactly, have I done? I get on a message board and speak my mind. I've attended a few rallies. Does that make me a militant?

I think the real militant here is someone who uses their position in power--their long held dominance--to squash the rights of minorities.

My comments on this forum may seem outrageous and bizarre to someone who isn't gay--someone who hasn't seen the world through my eyes.

I at least attempt to walk in "your side's" shoes when I argue gay marriage and gay rights from a Biblical perspective.

The truth is that since we live in a country where there is separation of church and state, the Books of the Bible have no bearing on the issue of gay marriage.

I can't recall any time that you or your boyfriend have ever stepped outside of your shell to at least consider my perspective.

You wouldn't know a militant gay or lesbian person if he/she threw a size 15 pump through your front window.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3135 Oct 29, 2011
VV,

You are a classic. And consistent.

AofW was spot on. That study was a joke and I suspect you know it.

Not only was she biased, but it also confirms what I said to you a while ago. You are too biased to comment on these subjects. Most people in a honest effort to study a issue would have disqualified themselves in your position. I'm surprised I have to ask you again!

Seriously, there are people on here looking for honest answers, trying to deal with reality. You are incapable of dealing with reality or being honest. Step aside and let someone else help. You are making gays look bad.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3136 Oct 29, 2011
Here are some tibits from VV's lesbian defense of 'family''study';

Starting in 1984, 154 lesbians volunteered to have their children from artificial insemination 'monitored' for this study.

The 154 Lesbian mothers ALL said their children were not just well adjusted, but they were (significantly) SUPERIOR to their peers!

Without divulging the number, even Lesbians mothers whose partners had left the 'family' voiced no consequences what-so-ever!

There also were absolutely no problems in the children due to the absence of fathers!

What we have here, is SUPER FAMILIES!!! From now on, only lesbians should be allowed to be artificially inseminated and allowed to have children! Think of the trouble we would save! All we need men for is to provide the sperm!

See, there is no problem deliberately birthing a child separate from a parent. There is no problem leaving one parent/gender completely out of a 'family' setting.

Right.

This disgusts me.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3137 Oct 29, 2011

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3138 Oct 29, 2011
VV,

First you said my study was off because it dealt with single parents. You were wrong.

Now you say it deals with divorced parents. How is that different from gay parents? One biological parent is missing in gay 'families' too.

Which brings up another issue. A step-family has two genders represented in the parents. A gay couple is missing one gender, therefor it cannot even measure up to a step-family!

You want gay union/families considered the same as normal/natural marriages/families, but then turn around and want them separated from the consequences. You can't have it both ways. In fact, this shows you can't have it any way.

Additionally, you still are afraid to face the issue of genderism. The deliberate segregation of genders in gay 'families'.

All this does is once again expose the idiotic fallacy of gay 'marriage' and 'families'.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3139 Oct 29, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
VV,
First you said my study was off because it dealt with single parents. You were wrong.
Now you say it deals with divorced parents. How is that different from gay parents? One biological parent is missing in gay 'families' too.
Which brings up another issue. A step-family has two genders represented in the parents. A gay couple is missing one gender, therefor it cannot even measure up to a step-family!
You want gay union/families considered the same as normal/natural marriages/families, but then turn around and want them separated from the consequences. You can't have it both ways. In fact, this shows you can't have it any way.
Additionally, you still are afraid to face the issue of genderism. The deliberate segregation of genders in gay 'families'.
All this does is once again expose the idiotic fallacy of gay 'marriage' and 'families'.
What amazes me is your continued denial of reality when it is staring right in the eyes!

You refer to the "idiotic fallacy of gay 'marriage' and 'families'--as though they are make believe--a figment of our imaginations.

Yet according to Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised by gay parents.

Should I introduce some of these gay families to you so that you'll know they're real--that they actually exist--that they aren't the "idiotic fallacy of gay 'marriage' and 'families'?"

I thought you kicked at the darkness? All you're doing is kicking in defeat--kicking in frustration.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3140 Oct 29, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
VV,
You are a classic. And consistent.
AofW was spot on. That study was a joke and I suspect you know it.
Not only was she biased, but it also confirms what I said to you a while ago. You are too biased to comment on these subjects. Most people in a honest effort to study a issue would have disqualified themselves in your position. I'm surprised I have to ask you again!
Seriously, there are people on here looking for honest answers, trying to deal with reality. You are incapable of dealing with reality or being honest. Step aside and let someone else help. You are making gays look bad.
Let's see... A Stanford and Harvard trained Psychiatrist does a 17 year study and you consider her findings to be a "joke"?

Who the hell are you?!? I mean seriously! Who do you think you are?!?

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to find the research/grant money, to scour the literature for information on the subject, to put together a plan and see it through to its end, and to finally have it published in a highly regarded professional journal?

You do realize that "Pediatrics: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics" and "The Journal of Orthopsychiatry" are different than "Ladies Home Journal" or "Field and Stream"?

They wouldn't allow this Dr. Gartrell to publish (what did you call it) a "joke".

You deny evidence when it's presented to you. You deny it because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

You can live in your "make believe" land. It doesn't surprise me.

The rest of us will live in the real world.
A of W

Smyrna, TN

#3141 Oct 30, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see... A Stanford and Harvard trained Psychiatrist does a 17 year study and you consider her findings to be a "joke"?
Who the hell are you?!? I mean seriously! Who do you think you are?!?
Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to find the research/grant money, to scour the literature for information on the subject, to put together a plan and see it through to its end, and to finally have it published in a highly regarded professional journal?
You do realize that "Pediatrics: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics" and "The Journal of Orthopsychiatry" are different than "Ladies Home Journal" or "Field and Stream"?
They wouldn't allow this Dr. Gartrell to publish (what did you call it) a "joke".
You deny evidence when it's presented to you. You deny it because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
You can live in your "make believe" land. It doesn't surprise me.
The rest of us will live in the real world.
With liberals in charge of the purse strings, I would think it's a piece of cake to get grant money to come to a foregone conclusion regarding homosexuality.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3142 Oct 30, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>With liberals in charge of the purse strings, I would think it's a piece of cake to get grant money to come to a foregone conclusion regarding homosexuality.
I guess you've never written grant proposals before.

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#3143 Oct 30, 2011
It's so frustrating that people are still against gay marriage, even though they cannot come up with even 1 good reason to deny gay people the right to marry that's not based on their religion.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3144 Oct 30, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
It's so frustrating that people are still against gay marriage, even though they cannot come up with even 1 good reason to deny gay people the right to marry that's not based on their religion.
Guess you haven't looked at this forum yet...

Here's the current reason being discussed (not based on any religion);

A purported 'study' of 184 lesbian couples who birthed children by artificial insemination.
-Children deliberately birthed without a father
-Children deliberately segregated from one gender in the home.

All in the effort to design a 'marriage' and create a 'family' at the expense of a child. Sad.

Nothing less than criminal insane abuse.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3145 Oct 30, 2011
Robert P Sundel, Physician
Children's Hospital Boston

...The conclusions, however, that children of lesbian mothers demonstrate superior psychological adjustment compared to children of traditional families, even when the parents separate before the children are fully grown, are, on their face, a bit fantastic.

Is the implication, that fathers are an undesirable component of the family, to be taken at face value? Such a conclusion, notwithstanding the caveats acknowledged by the authors in their discussion, begs for a better study with randomly selected subjects, objective measurement and followup, and appropriate control groups.

Alexander C. Tsai, Department of Psychiatry
University of California at San Francisco

Gartrell and Bos concluded that adolescents raised in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than a comparator group of adolescents. Their interpretation is subject to two additional limitations, however, neither of which is noted by the authors.

First, the differences they observed were not adjusted for observed (or unobserved) differences in socioeconomic factors. It is unclear why conventional statistical adjustments were not performed, as Table 1 indicates clearly that some rudimentary data were available: the comparator adolescents were more likely to have black or Latino/a parents and more likely to be from the Midwest or South.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the differences they observed may be due to social desirability bias. The potential tendency for study participants to "present themselves and their families in the best possible light" [1](p.279) was acknowledged in the first report of data from the NLLFS. Given that the present study makes use of a comparator group to draw inferences about same-sex parenting, I would expect this limitation to be even more strongly emphasized. The effect of social desirability bias is known to be intensified when study subjects are similar, in terms of social distance, to those administering the study.

Therefore, more information about how study participants were recruited, samples of the language used in follow up letters, and examples of how prior findings from the NLLFS were presented to the lesbian community would be helpful for readers attempting to assess the potential effects of social desirability bias.

Daniel Trementozzi, Pediatrician

The study conclusions were based solely on the parental responses to the Child Behavior Checklist. Parents who complete CBCL's on their own children for a study that could potentially report negative findings on the outcomes of children raised in lesbian homes have a clear, self- serving bias. The fact that the study chose not to include the self reported CBCL or the teacher CBCL is mentioned, but it begs the point? Why? Were the results contradictory? On the surface it appears that the study authors are only reporting data that supports a specific, predetermined view-point. I will not be referencing this article or results as valid until ALL of the data is made public for review.

Neil E. Whitehead, Research Scientist
Whitehead Associates, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

The article raises an unusual methodological problem for surveys. There is a well known strong tendency for subjects to volunteer for surveys which show them in a good light. In this case there is an enormous political incentive for mothers to volunteer for such a survey and ensure upbringing is exemplary. However the measures presented are tests on the children and the interesting question arising is: is an indirect volunteer effect possible the attitudes or even instructions of the mothers to the children affecting the test results? I sympathise greatly with the researchers who imply a genuine random survey even today would be very difficult, but no definitive answer can really be possible in its absence.

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#3146 Oct 30, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
Robert P Sundel, Physician
Children's Hospital Boston
...The conclusions, however, that children of lesbian mothers demonstrate superior psychological adjustment compared to children of traditional families, even when the parents separate before the children are fully grown, are, on their face, a bit fantastic.
Is the implication, that fathers are an undesirable component of the family, to be taken at face value? Such a conclusion, notwithstanding the caveats acknowledged by the authors in their discussion, begs for a better study with randomly selected subjects, objective measurement and followup, and appropriate control groups.
...(this part of your post had to be removed so that I could stay under the character limit)...
Daniel Trementozzi, Pediatrician
The study conclusions were based solely on the parental responses to the Child Behavior Checklist. Parents who complete CBCL's on their own children for a study that could potentially report negative findings on the outcomes of children raised in lesbian homes have a clear, self- serving bias. The fact that the study chose not to include the self reported CBCL or the teacher CBCL is mentioned, but it begs the point? Why? Were the results contradictory? On the surface it appears that the study authors are only reporting data that supports a specific, predetermined view-point. I will not be referencing this article or results as valid until ALL of the data is made public for review.
Neil E. Whitehead, Research Scientist
Whitehead Associates, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
The article raises an unusual methodological problem for surveys. There is a well known strong tendency for subjects to volunteer for surveys which show them in a good light. In this case there is an enormous political incentive for mothers to volunteer for such a survey and ensure upbringing is exemplary. However the measures presented are tests on the children and the interesting question arising is: is an indirect volunteer effect possible the attitudes or even instructions of the mothers to the children affecting the test results? I sympathise greatly with the researchers who imply a genuine random survey even today would be very difficult, but no definitive answer can really be possible in its absence.
Ok... I gather from this post is that there were studies that stated that children raised by lesbain couples were at an advantage. And that these studies are being disputed because they may not have been completely objective.
As interesting as this controversy is, it is irrelevant. This says nothing about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it just says that these studies were not completely reliable. I never said that children raised by lesbian or gay couples were better off then those raised by straight couples. In fact, I never said anything about children period. I just said that there are no good reasons to deny gay people the right to marry. And that statement still remains true.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3147 Oct 30, 2011
Alex I. Kartashov, biostatistician
Policy Analysis Inc., Brookline, MA

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.
A of W

Smyrna, TN

#3148 Oct 30, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
Alex I. Kartashov, biostatistician
Policy Analysis Inc., Brookline, MA
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.
Go Watchmann, go. Have you ever seen a study of homosexuals by homosexuals that came to negative conclusions about homosexuality?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3149 Oct 30, 2011
Watchmann...

Did you go to college? Do you honestly not know the process of research? Do you not know the steps that must be taken in order to advance knowledge?

You went to the "Pediatrics, The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics" website and found a few letters that further the discussion started by Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos.

There are always going to be those people who look at a person's research and question certain methodological aspects--maybe even take exception with the original premise.

That's a part of the process.

These two people put together a study. They shopped it around before sending it off to the "Pediatrics" journal. After the Journal receives it, it's sent around for further review before it actually gets published.

Once it's published, the research is subject to further peer review.

The letters you copied and pasted do not represent failure on the part of Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos.

These people have knowledge of this issue that far surpasses either of us.

I know a lot about being gay, personally. But neither of us have completed a longitudinal study of 17 years of Lesbian families. And neither have any of the "naysayers" that you cite.

I have read their article--looked over their research. And from my own perspective, I believe they did an excellent job. Most research is based on self-evaluation. That seems to be what you are most upset about--that the Lesbian mothers were able to self-report.

Only lab rats are observed in a clinical setting. In order to gather information about human behavior and thinking, you almost always have to rely on self-reporting.

What would you propose these women do--put cameras and microphones in their houses, cars, on their bodies so that their behavior can be minutely studied?

I wonder if you've ever personally completed a research project--one that required you to obtain data from a subject or subjects? Didn't you have to rely on them reporting how they felt--what they experienced?

Give it up... You are in denial. You want to believe that LGBT people cannot raise healthy children. And that's simply is not the case.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3150 Oct 30, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>Go Watchmann, go. Have you ever seen a study of homosexuals by homosexuals that came to negative conclusions about homosexuality?
Yeah... We homosexuals can't be trusted. We think with our genitals.

I guess it would be best to wait for you guys to decide that we're really not evil--not a genetic mistake.

Thank goodness we have all of you "so-called Christian", dominating the world stage to keep control of things.

You guys seem like such great stewards of the planet. Let's see... Multiple wars throughout the world, pollution at an all time high, worldwide economic chaos, hunger and disease destroying third world nations, nearly two centuries of slavery in this country alone... need I go on?

Do you ever think about what you're going to say before it spews from your fingers?

Here's hoping that Watchmann doesn't suddenly decide to stop in his tracks. The way you tail him, it would take 2 tractors and a mule to pull you out of his behind.

It's embarrassing!
A of W

Smyrna, TN

#3151 Oct 30, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah... We homosexuals can't be trusted. We think with our genitals.
I guess it would be best to wait for you guys to decide that we're really not evil--not a genetic mistake.
Thank goodness we have all of you "so-called Christian", dominating the world stage to keep control of things.
You guys seem like such great stewards of the planet. Let's see... Multiple wars throughout the world, pollution at an all time high, worldwide economic chaos, hunger and disease destroying third world nations, nearly two centuries of slavery in this country alone... need I go on?
Do you ever think about what you're going to say before it spews from your fingers?
Here's hoping that Watchmann doesn't suddenly decide to stop in his tracks. The way you tail him, it would take 2 tractors and a mule to pull you out of his behind.
It's embarrassing!
Are you saying that being straight sexually causes multiple wars throughout the world, pollution at an all time high, worldwide economic chaos, hunger and disease that destroys third world nations, and nearly two centuries of slavery in this country alone ? If straight men would just poke it in another man, then all the world's problems would go away. Did I understand that correctly? Hell, Watchmann, we might ought to consider it. We could take one for the team.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3152 Oct 30, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that being straight sexually causes multiple wars throughout the world, pollution at an all time high, worldwide economic chaos, hunger and disease that destroys third world nations, and nearly two centuries of slavery in this country alone ? If straight men would just poke it in another man, then all the world's problems would go away. Did I understand that correctly? Hell, Watchmann, we might ought to consider it. We could take one for the team.
Well if the shoe fits...

I mean how many openly gay people sit at the steering wheel of the planet?

But you missed my other point about how it's the dominant ones that you really have to look out for. They're the one's who are running the planet into the toilet.

As for you guys "taking one for the team", I've been asking Watchmann to turn gay for a couple of years--to show us gay people just how easy it is to change one's sexual orientation.

I say "go for it"! If we can put a man on the moon, then we can put one on you!

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.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ted Cruz for president 22 min Girl 67
Facts for a Godless World 44 min Phil_is_Right 1
Jost International??? 52 min former worker 7
ty for slandering 1 hr just- wow 7
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 1 hr Red_Forman 7,637
Most comfortable maxi pad (Sep '10) 1 hr lucy 16
Savannah odum running police 3 county 1 hr ice cream 1
cowboys auto repair 4 hr justuraveguy 26
***** last post wins ***** 10 hr Trunketeer 1,623
impossible to do things alone 18 hr diesel doctor 26
Where all the girls like their puss eaten... 20 hr contagious 36
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]