Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
527
Support
 
265

Vote now in Greeneville:

Comments (Page 365)

Showing posts 7,281 - 7,300 of7,625
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7597
Jan 19, 2013
 
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
You're on EVERY gay thread on Topix delivering your opinions about SSM.
You're either trolling, or a latent homosexual. Since you aren't a homosexual.......
WOW! Until you mentioned that he was on other TOPIX threads, I believed that he only came to this one.

But as you pointed out, he's on many other TOPIX threads, saying the same things--obsessing over and focusing on gay sex--time and time again.

I had no idea the depths of his dysfunction. It really is pathological.

I'm glad you posted this. It really puts things into perspective.

Is there really any need to continue to feed this beast?

He is a mess. I recently said that I do not pity him. But after seeing just how screwed up he is, I'm beginning to feel a little bad for him. No one should be in this level of self-hatred and mental pain.

Let's hope he gets some help before he self-destructs.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7599
Jan 19, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
eryvermilion wrote:
You say:
"Marriage without children is simply friendship. No prevailing reason for government involvement. Contracts already address every issue."
--So, barren couples, elderly couples, and any other couples who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry?\
<quoted text>
Don't forget (deliberately) to add that I also said it was never a problem until gay couples that are barren attempted to fake marriage.
That is your problem. Why are you so ashamed of your relationships that you want to impose an imposter one on marriage?
Smile.
The fact that you had no "problem" is irrelevant to the question. The fact is you deem a relationship not able to produce children is a "friendship" not a "marriage". The fact is that you have yet to say why infertile couples would be allowed to marry even though by your standards their relationship is a "friendship".

I am not ashamed of my relationship... I have a hot wife (imho). Your question is still asking thesame question you refuse to answer, just worded differently. Are infertile people so ashamed of their inablility to produce children that they " want to impose an imposter one on marriage?" Again unless you can show the difference, by your logic that is all that it is.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7600
Jan 19, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you had no "problem" is irrelevant to the question. The fact is you deem a relationship not able to produce children is a "friendship" not a "marriage". The fact is that you have yet to say why infertile couples would be allowed to marry even though by your standards their relationship is a "friendship".
I am not ashamed of my relationship... I have a hot wife (imho). Your question is still asking thesame question you refuse to answer, just worded differently. Are infertile people so ashamed of their inablility to produce children that they " want to impose an imposter one on marriage?" Again unless you can show the difference, by your logic that is all that it is.
I just have to say how much, as a gay man, I appreciate you holding his feet to the fire on this issue. You really do seem to get it!

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7601
Jan 19, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you had no "problem" is irrelevant to the question. The fact is you deem a relationship not able to produce children is a "friendship" not a "marriage". The fact is that you have yet to say why infertile couples would be allowed to marry even though by your standards their relationship is a "friendship".
I am not ashamed of my relationship... I have a hot wife (imho). Your question is still asking thesame question you refuse to answer, just worded differently. Are infertile people so ashamed of their inablility to produce children that they " want to impose an imposter one on marriage?" Again unless you can show the difference, by your logic that is all that it is.
Don't expect an answer. When backed into a corner, Kimare simply disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the same old copy and paste replies. Your question is an excellent one, which many of us have raised in the past. Kimare's arguments fall apart at the seams when we pick at the threads.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7602
Jan 19, 2013
 
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't expect an answer. When backed into a corner, Kimare simply disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the same old copy and paste replies. Your question is an excellent one, which many of us have raised in the past. Kimare's arguments fall apart at the seams when we pick at the threads.
Over the time I have been posting I have come across several people like kimar... you know the crowd... Patty, ulh, Brian G. all post the same things over and over (B.G. must have a library of cut and paste responses cause same exact ones show up time and time again). The all have the same m.o. Post something, when confronted, change the subject, sidestep the question and try to wear you down. TBH there are times where the old addage of who is more the fool, the fool or the person argueing with him comes to mind. Unfortunaltely, they can not be ignored because then they win....
dez

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7603
Jan 19, 2013
 
One word.... DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7604
Jan 19, 2013
 
dez wrote:
One word.... DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!
Maybe you should remove all the mirrors from your house.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7605
Jan 19, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a much greater likelihood that you are a gay pedophile than I am gay.
The average gay pedophile has about 280 victims.
Homosexual males are maybe 2% of the population.
At least 1 in 6 boys are molested before age 18. That is pretty much equal to girls.
http://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children (more frequently)."
According to these reputable studies, gay men are actually less likely to molest children.
You continue to try to shift the focus away from your own comments and actions on here by making untrue comments about me. It's a very immature and sad strategy.
I, on the other hand, base my beliefs on the things that you have done and said here--your actual words.
It's like you're ashamed of the things you've said over and over. Why should you be ashamed of those things? If your own words and comments make you uncomfortable, then that's your issue. That's something that you need to deal with.
I have absolutely nothing to hide. I've never been accused of pedophilia--never been arrested, never had a child or anyone say that I've done anything like that. Nothing in my history supports your claims.
My claims about your questionable orientation are based on your own words and obsessive behaviors here.
Note that I included the site so verification could be made of quotes.

You don't. Why? Because in the past you have lied about information.

Your post above is meaningless without verifiable sites.

Moreover, Sandusky makes the same claims you do. All pedophiles do. They always lie. We know you lie. Every sign of a pedophile.

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7606
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you admit that your comments about me is simply "troll behavior". We've known that all along.
My comments questioning your orientation are based on the fact that you, as a straight man, have been inordinately obsessed with all things involving gay men for at least a period of two years.
You bring up anal sex again in this post. What's the fascination? Why are you so interested in it?
You are the one who continues to equate anal sex with homosexuality. I've said to you on many occasions that not all gay men engage in anal sex. I've even pointed out to you that a large numbers of heterosexual couples engage in it.
But time after time after time you keep bringing this subject up.
Those men who engage in anal sex with other men have nothing to hide. They're not embarrassed. You waste your time by trying to shame them.
But each time you bring it up, you expose your cards. You let all of us see what's inside your own head. We get some insight as to what is the true focus of your issues.
If you want to "troll" on me because I make you feel uncomfortable, that's fine--knock yourself out. But you've obviously got some issues that need to be resolved. And that's something that you have to do on your own.
I simply noted that it is more likely you are a pedophile than than I am gay.

That's simply a fact.

Your post above is a good example.You distort and lie about information and what I say. Sandusky distorted and lied about what others said to avert attention. Again, another similarity.

Moreover, by your own words, you are on here to 'help' young gays.

Stay away from the kids VV!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7607
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what Loren Marks has to say...
"Marks explained: "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex-parents disadvantages children. However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2465...
Marks doesn't support Regnerus at all. In fact, Marks is pointing to Regnerus as being yet another flawed study that doesn't provide any conclusive evidence one way or another.
What a twisted bunch of BS.

Marks posted his study WITH Regnerus.

The quote you made was his questioning how lesbians (gay males are absent) would equate with natural, when foster, step, adoptive and single parents never did.

He was insinuating falsified studies!

Your first quote and your last quote cannot both be true.

Duh.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7608
Jan 19, 2013
 
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not very creative about sex, are you? You ASSume that intimacy means sticking a penis in either a vagina, or an anus.
Sadly, for your wife, intimacy goes FAR beyond where you insert things (or not).
Further, you assume that ALL gay male couples are engaging in anal sex.
All of your attempts to deny the reality of gay marriage fail.
Sucks to be the Mangina Man.
You really are a mongrel, aren't you.

'Intimacy' refers to sex in the context I spoke.

Anal sex is not intimacy, it is sodomy, abusive and demeaning.n It is still outlawed in most countries.

Nowhere have I asserted that ALL gays engage in anal sex. You lied again.

You still have no argument. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are literally 'unmarriage'.

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7609
Jan 19, 2013
 
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
You're on EVERY gay thread on Topix delivering your opinions about SSM.
You're either trolling, or a latent homosexual. Since you aren't a homosexual.......
Or, I'm defending marriage and confronting liars.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7610
Jan 19, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
eryvermilion wrote:
You say:
"Marriage without children is simply friendship. No prevailing reason for government involvement. Contracts already address every issue."
--So, barren couples, elderly couples, and any other couples who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry?\
<quoted text>
Don't forget (deliberately) to add that I also said it was never a problem until gay couples that are barren attempted to fake marriage.
That is your problem. Why are you so ashamed of your relationships that you want to impose an imposter one on marriage?
Smile.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you had no "problem" is irrelevant to the question. The fact is you deem a relationship not able to produce children is a "friendship" not a "marriage". The fact is that you have yet to say why infertile couples would be allowed to marry even though by your standards their relationship is a "friendship".
I am not ashamed of my relationship... I have a hot wife (imho). Your question is still asking thesame question you refuse to answer, just worded differently. Are infertile people so ashamed of their inablility to produce children that they " want to impose an imposter one on marriage?" Again unless you can show the difference, by your logic that is all that it is.
1. It wasn't me that had 'no problem' with childless couples, it IS the government and has been historically. Never a problem until gays demanded to impose and imposter relationship.

2. You refuse to answer how heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate opens the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate.

3. I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.

You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.

4. Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.

5. This lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay unions;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7611
Jan 19, 2013
 
Kimare says:
I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.

Reality: Friendship--love even--is only a recent addition to marriage. "The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

"In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs."

"In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval." http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-m...

----------

Kimare says:
You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.

Reality: "The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents."

Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits are not available to same-sex partners.

Same-sex partners are denied the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Same-sex partners are not eligible for V.A. benefits, even if their partners served in active duty.

In fact same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.

----------

Kimare says:
Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.

Reality: Marriage has always been a legal contract. Many times it was a contract between families--not individuals. As discussed above, marriage has only recently (200 of the past 4,000 years) involved anything other than love. They were contractual exchanges that usually involved land, livestock, money, etc.

----------

Why don't you learn a little about the history of marriage before spouting off?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7612
Jan 19, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply noted that it is more likely you are a pedophile than than I am gay.
That's simply a fact.
Your post above is a good example.You distort and lie about information and what I say. Sandusky distorted and lied about what others said to avert attention. Again, another similarity.
Moreover, by your own words, you are on here to 'help' young gays.
Stay away from the kids VV!!!
Actually, the statistics show that pedophiles are generally men who are married, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.

And you seem to know an awful lot about pedophilia. You seem to know intimate details about Sandusky. Do you read a lot about pedophilia too? Are you as obsessed with pedophilia as you are with gay sex?

I've never twisted any of your words. Anyone who is interested need only go back and look at your history. How many times have you complained about lesbian sex? Rarely... But your focus on gay male sex is bizarre for a "straight" man.

I'm here to help all gay people, young or old. Help doesn't equate sex.

You've already admitted that you simply accuse me of pedophilia because you don't like being accused of having homosexual impulses.

Your accusations about me don't bother me--it's like accusing me of being a loaf of bread or some other nonsense.

However, my comments about you seem to hit a little too close to home for you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7613
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
Kimare says:
I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.
Reality: Friendship--love even--is only a recent addition to marriage. "The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."
"In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs."
"In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval." http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-m...
----------
Kimare says:
You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.
Reality: "The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents."
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits are not available to same-sex partners.
Same-sex partners are denied the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
Same-sex partners are not eligible for V.A. benefits, even if their partners served in active duty.
In fact same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
----------
Kimare says:
Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.
Reality: Marriage has always been a legal contract. Many times it was a contract between families--not individuals. As discussed above, marriage has only recently (200 of the past 4,000 years) involved anything other than love. They were contractual exchanges that usually involved land, livestock, money, etc.
----------
Why don't you learn a little about the history of marriage before spouting off?
We call this gay twirl history;

1. Only kings married? Or was everyone a king?

2. What about Song of Solomon? Or how about Romeo and Juliet?

3. Polygamy; One male and two or more females bearing his children. Still not redumbant genders is it?

4. The rights you list were established for mothers and children, not simply a benefit of friends. They are not needed or deserved.

Any others are fully obtainable by legal designation.

Man up VV and quite trying to scheme benefits from women and children!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7614
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
Kimare says:
I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.
Reality: Friendship--love even--is only a recent addition to marriage. "The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."
"In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs."
"In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval." http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-m...
----------
Kimare says:
You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.
Reality: "The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents."
Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits are not available to same-sex partners.
Same-sex partners are denied the right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
Same-sex partners are not eligible for V.A. benefits, even if their partners served in active duty.
In fact same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
----------
Kimare says:
Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.
Reality: Marriage has always been a legal contract. Many times it was a contract between families--not individuals. As discussed above, marriage has only recently (200 of the past 4,000 years) involved anything other than love. They were contractual exchanges that usually involved land, livestock, money, etc.
----------
Why don't you learn a little about the history of marriage before spouting off?
We call this gay twirl history;

1. Only kings married? Or was everyone a king?

2. What about Song of Solomon? Or how about Romeo and Juliet?

3. Polygamy; One male and two or more females bearing his children. Still not redumbant genders is it?

4. The rights you list were established for mothers and children, not simply a benefit of friends. They are not needed or deserved.

Any others are fully obtainable by legal designation.

Man up VV and quite trying to scheme benefits and resources from women and children!

5. Didn't say marriage didn't include contractual aspects, I said it wasn't dumbed down to solely a contract.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7615
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the statistics show that pedophiles are generally men who are married, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.
And you seem to know an awful lot about pedophilia. You seem to know intimate details about Sandusky. Do you read a lot about pedophilia too? Are you as obsessed with pedophilia as you are with gay sex?
I've never twisted any of your words. Anyone who is interested need only go back and look at your history. How many times have you complained about lesbian sex? Rarely... But your focus on gay male sex is bizarre for a "straight" man.
I'm here to help all gay people, young or old. Help doesn't equate sex.
You've already admitted that you simply accuse me of pedophilia because you don't like being accused of having homosexual impulses.
Your accusations about me don't bother me--it's like accusing me of being a loaf of bread or some other nonsense.
However, my comments about you seem to hit a little too close to home for you.
Aside from marriage, pedophilia identity sounds like you.

You've been accusing me of being gay for two years. How's that working out for you?

Snicker.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7616
Jan 19, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a twisted bunch of BS.
Marks posted his study WITH Regnerus.
The quote you made was his questioning how lesbians (gay males are absent) would equate with natural, when foster, step, adoptive and single parents never did.
He was insinuating falsified studies!
Your first quote and your last quote cannot both be true.
Duh.
"After reviewing studies published between 1980 and 2005 cited by the 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA), Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University says that a lot of the evidence that forms the basis of the brief does not stand up to scrutiny."

So Marks is saying that the APA's statement does not stand up to scrutiny. However, he also clearly says, "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex-parents disadvantages children. However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way."

Let me see if I can summarize it in a way that you can understand. Marks doesn't agree with the APA. He feel that their studies are lacking. However, Marks can't definitively say that LGBT people are bad parents. He simply says that there is insufficient information to support either claim.

Now do you understand? Marks doesn't agree with either side, but he doesn't disagree with either side. There isn't enough data--according to Marks--to support either side.

Good Lord, this would be so much easier if you had ever been in a science class or taken a statistics course.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7617
Jan 19, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"After reviewing studies published between 1980 and 2005 cited by the 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA), Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University says that a lot of the evidence that forms the basis of the brief does not stand up to scrutiny."
So Marks is saying that the APA's statement does not stand up to scrutiny. However, he also clearly says, "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex-parents disadvantages children. However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way."
Let me see if I can summarize it in a way that you can understand. Marks doesn't agree with the APA. He feel that their studies are lacking. However, Marks can't definitively say that LGBT people are bad parents. He simply says that there is insufficient information to support either claim.
Now do you understand? Marks doesn't agree with either side, but he doesn't disagree with either side. There isn't enough data--according to Marks--to support either side.
Good Lord, this would be so much easier if you had ever been in a science class or taken a statistics course.
Still exposes your lie about gay 'parenting''skills'.

smirk.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,281 - 7,300 of7,625
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

40 Users are viewing the Greeneville Forum right now

Search the Greeneville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
TN Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 12 min BAS 123,787
Greene County Clerk Race 17 min harrieta 108
I love this forum because?????? 18 min harrieta 220
A Great Big Fck You 19 min harrieta 100
Chrysler 300 with Bentley grills 40 min Greg 3
Nathan Holt 45 min Greg 10
We need this man as our President 46 min harrieta 36
Greene County Mayor's Race 17 hr Lazy 83

Greeneville Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]