Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Thomas Landess: A former English professor at the University of Dallas, Landess co-wrote three articles with Paul Cameron between 2001 and 2005, all of which appeared in the low-ranked pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. Cameron described Landess as a “long-time FRI collaborator, supporter, and friend” at a 2002 FRI banquet, where Landess was the featured speaker. Landess is also identified with the Neo-Confederate Movement and once served as contributing editor of Southern Partisan magazine. One 1984 article for that magazine condemned the Statue of Liberty for its the ideals of freedom and nineteenth and early twentieth century immigration.
ROTFLMAO.... Get back to me when you can find a legitimate source, not some cohort of Paul Cameron.

Judged:

7

7

7

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
This is typical of the type of character assault one might expect out of your sources, Gary. Focusing on what a person did decades before the study is cheap and ignores what the woman was doing in the years preceding the publication of her work in 1957. Two decades prior to that her interests turned to clinical psychology. And the career of Landess was? Teaching creative writing?

Judged:

7

7

7

Prof Marvel wrote:

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Hon, you're offering me the "scientific insight" of a former English professor and associate of Paul Cameron, one of, if not the most discredited "scientists" in America. Repeating it does nothing to add to its credibility, it only makes you look sillier than usual.
Get back to me if you can find a legitimate source. In the meantime I am just going to continue to laugh at you.

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Hooker wasn't qualified which is why her study is deeply flawed. Basically, she did everything wrong.
My God, man -- she used homosexual subjects recommended by the gay activist group "Mattachine Society"!
Added to this, some of the subjects in her hetero sample group had homosexual encounters. And how can you expect meaningful results if the subjects know what your ultimate goal is?
By the way, she readily admits she did the story because her gay friends asked her to do it for them.
No bias there, huh?
I make these points and other points in my earlier post. Rebut them or stop wasting everybody's time.

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

Evelyn Hooker
The so-called "Rosa Parks of the gay movement" was a quack.
Read all about her "ground-breaking study" proving homosexuality is not a mental disorder:
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...
You fellows are going to have to do much better than the Hooker study on my watch.
Much better ...

Judged:

7

7

7

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Let us start with the Rorschach test then, big fella. One of your "gotcha" points. Do you know how one administers this test or are you simply happy parroting the complaints of someone you don't know? The test, as if you didn't know, consists of several ink blots that the test subject looks at. The comments of the subject are recorded, completely. About all that requires is a pen and paper.
Hooker didn't interpret those results herself. She handed them off to others to interpret. This brings up your double blind blathering. The people she had do the interpretations weren't aware of which subjects they were interpreting with respect to sexual orientation.

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
The Little Black Book was absolutely targeting heterosexual boys which is why the publishers of the booklet were busted at a high school youth conference handing it out to them.

Judged:

6

6

6

ftabmember wrote:

<quoted text>
-----
You say...."Gays and Lesbians for the most part are NOT depraved individuals!!!"
depraved: marked by corruption or evil; especially: perverted (Merriam-Webster)
Well, then you deny reality. Homosexual 'sex' is a depraved (perverted) form of sexual intercourse. Personally, I believe it's the most depraved expression of humanity. You know, akin to an abomination.
-----

Judged:

7

7

7

Prof Dingleberry wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!!! Did your Stanford Evolution scientist provide you with this stat?!!!! LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Are they required to? LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Who said children don't factor into marriage?!! No one I know. What was said was that procreation isn't a requirement of marriage.
Children does not equal procreation.
Factor does not equal requirement.
Your deceitfulness is hilarious KiMare!! I bet you think you are really smart!! I bet you brag to all the other fundies at your church socials about how smart you are by presenting the stupidity you launch on these Topix boards and they all congradulate you!!! Stupid fundies!!!
<quoted text>
I see. People can obtain handicap rights for many reasons, not just being in a wheelchair. Got it. So its just like how people can obtain marriage rights for many reasons, not just because they are going to procreate.
(Um, do you see what an idiot you are?!!! Everyone else does!!!)
<quoted text>
I love it when you delve into flowery speak! It's like your fingers are just a going and you think you have this incredible "point" to validate yourself and all you are doing is just typing nonsense!!
Let me rephrase what you just said. Being in a wheelchair can be one factor that identifies many as handicapped, and many of handicapped rights and privileges address that single potential. That's exactly the same as saying, "procreating can be one factor that identifes many as married, and many of marriage rights and privileges address that single potential."
But, as YOUR words indicate, being in a wheelchair "CAN" be one factor. Just as procreating "CAN" be one factor. Neither are the sole and only factor.
But please, let's continue disecting your nonsense! Carry on!
<quoted text>
Children in marriage is not the same thing as procreating fool. Please decide what it is that you are talking about and stick with one thing.
Oh, and by the way, the potential that marriages produce children is NOT "overwhelming". Do you have any idea how many people marry AFTER the age of potential childbearing?!! LOL!! Damn you are stupid!!!
<quoted text>
OMG!!! What a dolt! Did you think that adding "solely" would make you seem smart?!! Um, first off, first cousins can, and do marry, so claiming that they are not allowed to because they can potentially procreate makes you an outright liar and idiot. 25 states allow first cousins to marry you moron!!
And only 8 states still require a blood test. And blood tests were and are solely about potential disease. Period. They have nothing to do with the bullshit you are trying to peddle.

Judged:

8

8

8

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't give a rat's arse what Frank, the eejit, "goes." Got it? You don't really qualify as Curly either, not that I am a big fan of the three stooges, but he was clearly the better of the four. I'll give your buddy, Gary, the role of Moe, you and Riccardo can fight over who wants to be Larry. Or you can take Joe, Curly's replacement.

Judged:

7

7

7

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't give a rat's arse what Frank, the eejit, "goes." Got it? You don't really qualify as Curly either, not that I am a big fan of the three stooges, but he was clearly the better of the four. I'll give your buddy, Gary, the role of Moe, you and Riccardo can fight over who wants to be Larry. Or you can take Joe, Curly's replacement.

Judged:

7

7

7

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did it target anyone under a certain age? Nothing in it states that it targeted straight boys under a certain age, but let's say it did target a certain age group........you still are only upset by a book providing information for boys, yet ignore a site that is design to answer sexual questions from kids at least 15 years on up......why is that?
The language is straight forward because it is design to get the message across.....so no fancy words are needed........and the only really graphic picture I saw, was how to put a condom on correctly......and if I had a grandson who was a teenager and active sexually......this booklet does provide a lot of good information and phone numbers of people who can help, if they felt isolated.........like young Gay men do at a time when dealing with who you are is difficult.
Again, either you haven't actually read the "Little Black Book" or YOU'VE decided that there is more than meets the eye!!!

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

1. Did not use a random sample

Prof Marvel wrote:

2. Used homosexuals recommend by Mattachine Society activists.

Prof Marvel wrote:

3. Used a control group of heterosexuals that included heterosexuals who had had homosexual encounters as adults.

Prof Marvel wrote:

4. Botched analysis of her Rorschach Test -- she had zero experience in Rorschach Testing.

Prof Marvel wrote:

5. Mathematical calculations all wrong.

Prof Marvel wrote:

6. No double-blind

Prof Marvel wrote:

7. Homosexual subjects aware of ultimate goal of study

Prof Marvel wrote:

8 As stated above, Hooker was a rat-runner -- never before had she done studies on humans.
==========

Judged:

6

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

We know of two instances where the publishers handed the booklet out to underage boys, one is the Brookline high school, the other was Youth on Fire drop in center.