Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>

The totality of this idiot's rebuttal was...

and speaking of idiots... I see there have been 100 pages of posts since my last one and Professor Marvelous hasn't posted anything new...

Come on fella, you better got on this before you lose any more of your (ever dwindling) share of the TOPIX spamtards and asspuppets.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Fine, then you should find rebutting his point ...

But LQTM, I see he is still busy with re butting the rebuttals...

Someone really needs to tell this poor fella to start posting this tired old drivel somewhere where someone gives a shit.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Okay, if pointing out that you were quoting an unqualified hack with a painfully obvious anti-gay agenda wasn't sufficient to demonstrate just how bad of a source you were citing, I'm more than happy to help you look foolish. <quoted text>She used matched pairs, something not possible with a random sample, that should have been your first clue that you were relying on someone who knew less than you.
<quoted text>Absolutely shocking, it was 1957 dear, she needed assistance to find openly homosexual men to take part in the study and the Mattachine Society was one of the few groups that could help in that process. Another invalid whine from a fool.
<quoted text>A grand total of TWO. They were still heterosexuals and you are still relying on an unqualified hack.
<quoted text>In the opinion of a retired English professor the results were botched, I bet you can hear me laughing from out here in the middle of Kansas. Hooker may not have had experience in Rorschach testing, but she utilized experts who did.
<quoted text>He points out a couple of minor rounding of figures as errors and you fell for it.
<quoted text>Unnecessary given the study's design, if he were an actual scientist and not an English professor with an anti--gay agenda, he might have known this.
<quoted text>No dear, they knew what the study was designed to find out, that wouldn't make them not mentally ill if they were, moron.
<quoted text>So? You're citing a retired English professor with absolutely ZERO background in scientific studies, tell me, who is more qualified?
Is there any question in what you pass off as your mind why I see you as an emotionally stunted, psychologically disturbed moron.

you went overboard saying her "science" got homosexuals removed from the DSM; here's a quote from the New Yorker about the famous psychiatrist who actually did remove homosexuals as sociopaths:

"when gay activists began to protest the designation of homosexuality as a pathology Spitzer brokered a compromise that eventually resulted in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM"

Spitzer elsewhere said he removed homosexuals simply because they didn't improve

he also scientifically validated in a prestigious journal that homosexuals can become heterosexuals; although he backed away somewhat from that this year, the prestigious journal has not backed away

two reasons homosexuals no longer say the name of the man who ruled the DSM like a despot

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/03/0...

if Winston tries to read the New Yorker: the magazine section is pronounced "An-nals of Medicine" not "Anals"

Cavorting with the fools on Wallstreet again, are you?

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>You actually know no such thing, the copy that MassResistance PICKED UP at the school event had been left on a table with numerous other publications. There is no evidence that ANYONE other than their mole even saw, let alone took one and as for it being passed out at the youth center, we only have your word on that.

Aside from Prof Malevolent, is well know for being 20 years behind in his "research", no one pays any attention to MassResistance any more. Like most lunatic fringe organizations MARes has been completely ignored by credible media outlets. Hell, the hacks at FOX "news" haven't done a story on the group for over 4 years.

They try to stir things up by cooking up these little homosexual dramas but the fact is that the groups membership has dwindled to a handful of extremest nut jobs and a this point Brian Camenker is pretty much running a one internet man show. He's almost as big a joke in MA as professor Malevolent is here on TOPIX.

Brian Camenker wrote:

Homosexuality is unnatural and you have to have— just like you HAD TO HAVE the Jim Crow laws to keep the races apart—you have to have these laws and diversity trainings and constant propaganda to keep it going."

Camenker making an ass of himself on the Daily Show SEVEN YEARS AGO:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-novembe...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/...

It's little wonder that our Professor Malevolent is a fan of this twisted fella.

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?

I'm going to go an idiot parroting another idiot...and that if the old fella was ever given a Rorschach he would see penis hat, penis costumes, assless chaps and little black books on every card.

and definitely some penis shaped floats!

In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.

A unbelievably stupid statement! It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.

The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to
procreate.

The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.

Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?

Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
We know of two instances where the publishers handed the booklet out to underage boys...

Hey boys, Is this fella ever going to post anything here that doesn't source back to some long forgotten claptrap from a bunch of loser desperate for media attention?

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
We're supposed to take the word of a failed e-book author on who is a quack? Keep repeating your link, Gary. It makes you look rather challenged.

The poor fella is "debating" a paper written in 1957...

I think we are supposed to KEEP LAUGHING.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

Okay, if pointing out that you were quoting an unqualified hack with a painfully obvious anti-gay agenda wasn't sufficient to demonstrate just how bad of a source you were citing, I'm more than happy to help you look foolish. <quoted text>She used matched pairs, something not possible with a random sample, that should have been your first clue that you were relying on someone who knew less than you.

(Yawn)

In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.

<quoted text>Absolutely shocking, it was 1957 dear, she needed assistance to find openly homosexual men to take part in the study and the Mattachine Society was one of the few groups that could help in that process. Another invalid whine from a fool.

Indeed, and after finding out the purpose of her study the Mattachine Society was only to happy to hand-pick study subjects for her.

Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.

The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.

Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.

<quoted text>A grand total of TWO. They were still heterosexuals and you are still relying on an unqualified hack.

Learn to read. The number was three -- which represents 10% of her study population of heterosexuals.

<quoted text>In the opinion of a retired English professor the results were botched, I bet you can hear me laughing from out here in the middle of Kansas. Hooker may not have had experience in Rorschach testing, but she utilized experts who did.

Wrong again -- here's why:

"...Critics of Hooker's Rorschach results make at least two points. First, they question her ability to administer and score the test. As an animal researcher until the time she undertook this project, she obviously had logged comparatively little experience in administering Rorschachs, a delicate and highly complicated task in which the clinician gently and obliquely elicits spontaneous responses. Some authorities in the field maintain that, under ideal circumstances, a more qualified expert would have explored many avenues Hooker failed to note and would have found out many things Hooker missed -- including indications of the pathology of the homosexuals.
A second criticism of her methodology is the lack of "blindness" in the administration of the Rorschach. Ideally, given the nature of the results sought, the test should have been administered under circumstances in which both interviewer and subject were unaware of the purpose of the test. In the case of the Hooker study, both she and her subjects knew what she was striving to prove -- and both she and the homosexuals had a vested interest in proving the hypothesis that homosexuals were not necessarily pathological.

<quoted text>He points out a couple of minor rounding of figures as errors and you fell for it.

She actually gets every calculation in her study wrong. Here's a couple of them:

"... Turning to the table upon which she lists the age, IQ scores, and education of all 60 subjects, a careful reader finds that the figures neatly arranged in columns contradict her summary. While she says the age range for all subjects is 25-50, the chart indicates that the youngest subject is 26 and the oldest 57. The figures on the table indicate an average age of 35 for the homosexuals and 37 for the heterosexuals -- different averages than the ones Hooker gives.

In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.

ftabmember wrote:

<quoted text>
-----
Did you know that 40% of the APA voted to RETAIN homosexuality as a MENTAL ILLNESS. Yes, 40% would not succumb to the intimidation and bullying of the homosexual groups. Brave people indeed, to stand up for the truth while others chose to reject it.
-----

Just when the poor fella starts to feel all alone in the world a mysterious troll happens by here to agree with him.

And I see "KiMare" is here with more of "her" brilliant and original posts.

http://weheartit.com/tag/middle%20finger%20pr...

It's good to know that the asspuppet AND batshit crazy "communities" are BOTH so well represented here on TOPIX.

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>
Just when the poor fella starts to feel all alone in the world a mysterious troll happens by here to agree with him.
And I see "KiMare" is here with more of "her" brilliant and original posts.
http://weheartit.com/tag/middle%20finger%20pr...
It's good to know that the asspuppet AND batshit crazy "communities" are BOTH so well represented here on TOPIX.

I just wanted you to feel welcomed back.

Did you miss me???

Smile.

KiMare wrote:

In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.
A unbelievably stupid statement! It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.
The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to
procreate.
The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.
Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?
Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!

Well, your reasoning certainly is "childish".

:)

Prof Marvel wrote:

In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology.

INFLUENTIAL "gay activist" plotting to tricking the APA...

Only the passing of over half a centuries time AND a deluded mind working overtime could turn the gay socialist movement/the Mattachine Society into a seeds of a "new" conspiracy theory...

Hey fella, You better call a press confrere ASAP and prpbably start a petition to have the APA reconsider their 1957 decisions!

But I suggest that you get back on your medication first.

Prof Marvel wrote:

In summary, the woman was a dingbat rat-tester gang activists got to front for them.

In summary, the structure of this (alleged) sentence explains a lot about why your (self published) writing career is going the way it is.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Of course in your homosexual mind this is fine. In the world of science, however, it totally invalidates her story.

The "world of science" seems to be in UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT that heterosexuality is NOT superior to homosexuality and that the REAL problem is ignorance and bias against gays.
BTW the "arguments" that are the bases of nearly all your posts, like homosexuality being "disgusting" or a "choice" or a "sin" or a "mental illness", have no basis in SCIENCE.

Prof Marvel wrote:

The wonder is this silly woman didn't grasp this.
Oh, and we're real sorry she wasn't bright enough to grasp it.

There is no evidence that your claims about "gay rights activists" choosing Hoopers subjects and the "silly woman" is dead.

But if you want to find out why a researched might not "grasp this" maybe you should google Dr Robert Spitzer?

As I recall YOU were once very found of quoting from and agreeing with Dr Spitzer's (now) completely debunked "study"...

Oh dear...it appears that you weren't bright enough to see that you were being manipulated. Silly man.

Prof Marvel wrote:

Learn to do deep research and you'll uncover information like this

Poor Professor Marmalade, The sad part is that you really think you are ONTO something when it's so obvious to everyone else that you're just ON something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
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.
Combined or individually that establishes who the booklet was created for.
But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that. Show us how that 'mistake' might have happened.

You believe that the booklet was handed out.....you, however have NOT given anything specifically that proves it was......and MassResistance is NOT a reliable source!!!

Prof Marvel wrote:

But let's play with this a little. You tell us it was a mistake the booklet appeared on a table at the high school.
Walk us through that.

Option #1:
Those porn cruising jiz monkeys at MassResistance took time off form their circle jerk and wrote and published the book and later planted it because no one was paying attention to them any more...

Option #2:

They made the whole thing up.

Hell, anyone who has ever looked at their crazyass website can tell that they pull most of the content from their own asses and cut and paste the rest from other equally suspect nutjob type sites.