Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Prof Dingleberry wrote:

<quoted text>
No, actually dipshit, LGBT is its own acronym. LGBTQI is a different acronym. And only morons with absoloutely nothing of substance to add to a conversation would take the time out like you have to make an issue of them.
<quoted text>
How is someone's clothing in anyway associated with any of these terms? Oh, that's right, they aren't. You just like to demonstrate repeatedly how stupid you are.
<quoted text>
I'm having a blast you tweeked out blond highlighted sniveling fat ass bitch! Watching you demonstrate so proudly what a complete imbecilic moron you are never gets old!!
Still waiting on those remaining 13 bible verses you chicken shit coward! They coming anytime soon?

Hey, I hear they're bringing back the Superman television series. Well, sort of. They updated him for times.

He's called "Queerman" now:

"Faster than a speeding bullet.

Able to blow big cocks with a single lick.

And who, disguised as Judy Garland, was able to service the entire Seventh Fleet in a single night?

Queerman!

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Now Yogi was the greatest catcher

But according to Georgian drag queens, you weren't that far behind.

Anyway, you didn't answer the question.

WanderLusts wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry,but OFF TOPIC and completely irrelevant to the question of the thread! Either stay on topic or go to a thread more relevant to your own personal concerns! But as I said,STFU or get ON topic,Marriage equality and the declaring of Prop 8 as Unconstitutional in the state of California and that verdict being upheld by a higher court,which reaffirmed the original decision of Judge Walkers verdict! Prop 8,UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I fail to see what your ridiculous post has to do with anything except your own warped mind se and personal faultst!

My question has to do with equating genetic defects with "Marriage (is) one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." SCOTUS

You know that connection. That is the real reason you don't just simply answer the question.

Smile.

Prof Dingleberry wrote:

<quoted text>
MORON Alert!
Why would someone dress in a manner that might attract a potential mate? Gee whiz, KiMare's limited intellectual capacity just can't fathom it!! I mean, seriously, who would ever exhibit such behavior?!! Seems ridiculous!!
Same retarded question from the moron, just a different day!
"Sexual attraction behavior"!!!!! LOL!!!!! Stupid moron!!

Dress AND act. A lesbian like a man, a gay like a girl.

Evolutionary mating behavior.

Why does such a simple question stir such anger and strained avoidance? You could just give the validated answer and be done with it...

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, I hear they're bringing back the Superman television series. Well, sort of. They updated him for times.
He's called "Queerman" now:
"Faster than a speeding bullet.
Able to blow big cocks with a single lick.
And who, disguised as Judy Garland, was able to service the entire Seventh Fleet in a single night?
Queerman!

Written and directed by Prof Marvel.

l;ol

For your weekend reading pleasure;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ ...

3. Conclusion

The 2005 APA Brief, near its outset, claims that “even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from that which will be summarized”(p. 5). The concluding summary later claims,“Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth”(p. 15).96

We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high confidence, data-based “yes” or “no” response to this question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23–45; see Table 1) 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. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them (e.g., Table 2).

Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made “egregious overstatements”97 disparaging gay and lesbian parents. Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an “exceptionally clear”98 verdict of “no difference” between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.99 As noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist,“the line between science and advocacy appears blurred”(p. 712).

The scientific conclusions in this domain will increase in validity as researchers:(a) move from small convenience samples to large representative samples; (b) increasingly examine critical societal and economic concerns that emerge during adolescence and adulthood; (c) include more diverse same-sexfamilies (e.g., gay fathers, racial minorities, and those without middle-high socioeconomic status); (d) include intact, marriage-based heterosexual families as comparison groups; and (e) constructively respond to criticisms from methodological experts.100 Specifically, it is vital that critiques regarding sample size, sampling strategy, statistical power, and effect sizes not be disregarded. Taking these steps will help produce more methodologically rigorous and scientifically informed responses to significant questions affecting families and children.

KiMare wrote:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ ...

Marks is not telling us anything that we weren't already aware of, the existing studies of Lesbian and Gay parenting are inadequate to draw empirical conclusions. Larger scale studies would be helpful, but are are cost prohibitive, as demonstrated by the large amount of money flushed down the toilet by Regenerus with the fraud he perpetrated.

Why isn't the Family Research Council-shooting a hate crime?

Just bring in some more rounds and well have another go at it.

RiccardoFire wrote:

Why isn't the Family Research Council-shooting a hate crime?

Although the FRC identifies as a "Christian" group, if the attack was motivated by their politics as opposed to their religious beliefs, it wouldn't qualify either under DC's or federal law. The difference between shooting at someone who happens to be Christian and shooting at them BECAUSE they are Christian. If he's found to be playing with a full enough deck to even stand trial, he will more than likely face well earned federal terrorism charges though.

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I looked it up. Q stands for Queer which apparently means "pansexual" while intersex seems to mean what used to be called hermaphroditic -- people with sexual organs of both genders.
In other words, all the people we used to see in the circus sideshow now fall under the LGBT umbrella.
Is that about the size of it?

Wrong....."Q" stands for QUESTIONING......those who truly aren't totally sure if they are Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual......try just a little to pull your head outta of your azz, old ignorant one!!!

Put in another round this one should be a deep penatrator.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical Liberal. Resorting to insults when you can't handle an opinion. LOL So much for "tolerance" /sarcasm

Since when have your lie's ever been mistaken for truth? LOL,YOU wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your ass! On the other hand you are indeed in dire need of psychological counseling! Might I suggest the county psych out patient clinic? Since you're a pauper it won't cost you a dime! Good luck with that,and your journey to good mental health! And do try not to lie so damn much cock roach,it's very unbecoming of you! LOLOLOL

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical Liberal. Resorting to insults when you can't handle an opinion. LOL So much for "tolerance" /sarcasm

P.S. and a friendly F.Y.I.,don't forget to bring that green card Paco! LOLOL

The Real Bill Of Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when have your lie's ever been mistaken for truth? LOL,YOU wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your ass! On the other hand you are indeed in dire need of psychological counseling! Might I suggest the county psych out patient clinic? Since you're a pauper it won't cost you a dime! Good luck with that,and your journey to good mental health! And do try not to lie so damn much cock roach,it's very unbecoming of you! LOLOLOL

Miami Beach, that's where you could score. Anybody can score there, even you.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh sweet baby jesus! Do you even understand the concept of "judicial review," Brian?

Yes, it was fabricated by the Marshall court and cannot be found in the Constitution- ANYWHERE.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not true, but even if it were, so what?

This is the logic of Rose..

It's not true, because she says so. And even if you can prove it's true- so what?

She will continue to deny facts which do not support her fantasy; which is her self created reality.

thisGuy wrote:

Ridiculous...

Guess what moron, you just successfully proved that it wasn't a hate crime either under District or federal law, because neither covers the hatred of "politics". Just because the group fancies those politics as somehow being "Christian" isn't proof that this was an attack on their alleged "Christianity" and if what you are saying is true, you proved it wasn't. Thanks for playing, but you really should quit while you're this far behind.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Most men who have anal sex have a vagina an inch away, and also engage in vaginal/penis intercourse. Sometimes in the same session..

You've never had a statistics class have you?

NEWSFLASH Rose-By your logic, Heterosexuals do more of EVERYTHING than Homosexuals- there are MANY more of us.

More Heterosexuals than homosexuals:
-Drive Cars
-Fly on planes
-Have jobs
-Own Homes
-Live on Earth
-Have traveled to space
-Have eaten peanut butter
-Eat Ice Cream
-Go running
-Go to the gym
-Fall in love

I would say- you get the point- but I doubt you do.