So gay!!!

[Hopper]

aint, you sure love to constantly criticize sirkickyass as being a pompous "know-it-all" - but you win the prize in that category - well, maybe you don't "know it all" but you sure as hell think you do, and you are far more pompous about it too.

you've consistently ranted about "substance" in this and other threads, but you have none yourself. you don't need to grow a pair, you need to cut yours off.

Good work, Mo! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. I can see you too treasure the idea of legalizing gay marriage and highly resent the revelation of any reasons it might not be immediately achieved. It's quite easy for me, or anyone else around this here joint, to make "enemies." All ya gotta do is refrain from sayin "yeah, you're absolutely right" after every post they make. Do you care to provide any substance for your unsupported statement that none of my posts have any substance, I wonder? I spect not, but feel free, ya know?

 

[moevillini]

Good work, Aint Hoppin! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. Now we can each take our balls and go home.

 

[Hopper]

I find the "editorial note" which precedes the research paper presented by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, to be kinda intristin, ya know? Sounds like the state's bottom-feeder in Arkansas, Kathy Hall, might have a few thangs in common with good ole Arnie Schwartzenegger, eh?:

"Most of this research review of empirical evidence applies to public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting of children, even though it was specifically prepared to defend the Arkansas regulation prohibiting the issuance of foster parent licenses to homes in which there is any adult involved in homosexual behavior. The attorney assigned to defend the Arkansas regulation, Kathy Hall, curiously made motions in court to exclude all scientific evidence regardingthe higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples to children, which undermined her own case. So Kathy Hall instructed Professor Rekers not to review research in those areas.

Then, after seeing Dr. Rekers' review (included in this paper) of the evidence of higher rates of
psychiatric disorders in practicing homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, attorney Kathy Hall made last minute motions to exclude that scientific evidence from consideration in the case just prior to Dr. Rekers' courtroom testimony. Ultimately, Kathy Hall did not allow Professor Rekers to present even 20% of the evidence in this paper that he provided her prior to his scheduled testimony in court. [A]s a result, Kathy Hall lost the case for the State of Arkansas."

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

Why would a bottom-feeder for the state make motions to exclude 80% of the remaining evidence (remaining after already excluding a huge portion of evidence, that is) that might help the state win it's case, I wonder? If any bottom-feeder felt such a motion was called for, you would think the bottom-feeder for other side would be the one to make it. Very "curious," indeed.

 

[One Brow]

Seems kinda funny that a guy who authors a book entitled "The Role of the Father in Child Development," which elucidates the different benefits parental gender confer in the development of children, could somehow be interpreted to be saying that "it is beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes," don't it?

Seems kinda funny you are still ignorantly portraying this material as being about gender specifically, as opposed to the roles they play.

Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists...Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny."

Now, if you want to use this to say Judge Walker over-reached in a particular quote, that's one thing. However, this certainly does not support Meese's claim of extensive evidence existing, it flatly refutes it. I'm certainly in favor of better-designed studies.

Meese's claim could also be supported by this 80 page report, by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., ...

https://www.catholiceducation.org/art...lParenting.pdf

Ultimately, Kathy Hall did not allow Professor Rekers to present even 20% of the evidence in this paper that he provided her prior to his scheduled testimony in court

So, less than 20% of that paper was considered reliable enough to be presented in a court of lay by the attorney who was opposing gay adoption? That doesn't even cover what the experts from the other side made of the reamining 20%. I'm going going to try to sift 80% garbage from 20% possibly garbage, possibly not garbage.

Why does this federal appellate court seem to think it MUST consider (or at least assume the state considered) "critiques" of the studies presented by the plaintiffs, I wonder? The gay judge in San Francisco didn't seem to think he had to. For him, like you, Eric, they didn't seem to even exist.

I'm still waiting for proof they do exist. Meanwhile, the federal court assuming the state courts/legislature undertook an action is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action.

I do, Eric. You obviously don't. Any "doubt" you choose to harbor seems to settle the issue for you.

Considering the credibility you have invested in the Discovery Institute, NARTH, global-warming denialists, and relativity cranks that a little more research would have shown you to be unreliable, you seem to be either deluded or just lying about your checking out opposing views. Just now you are quoting Rekers (founding member of NARTH) on homosexuality. Did you really think you would see an unbiased, scientific summary from that?

I got suckered into making a few such posts, eh, Eric? Satisfied, or do you want, like, mebbe one million more?

One more, with actual evidence supporting Meese's statement that is not a needle in a haystack, will be fine. Maybe you should avoid sources like NARTH in your "reasearch".

 

[Hopper]

Good work, Aint Hoppin! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. Now we can each take our balls and go home.

Well, OK, then, Mo! As long as you're willing to let me take my balls with me, and not castrate me, like ya think should happen, I'm good with that!

 

[Hopper]

I'm still waiting for proof they do exist. Meanwhile, the federal court assuming the state courts/legislature undertook an action is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action.

1. Just sit and wait, then, eh, Eric. The record in both the Florida and California cases is presumably available to the public. However, I don't think there's a requirement that a complete copy of the record be personally delivered to every member of Jazzfanz.

Or maybe you can just keep checking the article Meese wrote in the Washington Post every day to see if it's been revised to include 1000 pages of the court record. Could happen, I spoze.

2. No it is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action. Are you under the impression that any such guarantee is required? Read it again, it explains what the "rational reason" test requires a court to do (hint: not much, in fact nuthin, in the way of demanding proof that the legislature is implementing the best conceivable policy).

 

[Hopper]

Considering the credibility you have invested in the Discovery Institute, NARTH, global-warming denialists, and relativity cranks that a little more research would have shown you to be unreliable, you seem to be either deluded or just lying about your checking out opposing views. Just now you are quoting Rekers (founding member of NARTH) on homosexuality. Did you really think you would see an unbiased, scientific summary from that?

Been takin lesson from Biley, Eric? You once again demonstrate the hopelessness of rationally discussing a topic with an ideologue.

 

[Hopper]

Eric, this whole tactic of referring to highly respected scientists as "denialists" and "cranks," simply because you have ideological reasons for preferring different "scientific" findings than they arrive at, really doesn't merit a response. But, for the benefit of others here, who may not be ideologues, I will note the following:

Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Rekers in not a "founding member" of Narth, but even if he was, so what? Here is a link to information about one of the three founding members, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

https://www.josephnicolosi.com/resume/

It states there that: Dr. Nicolosi is one of three founding members--and former President--of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a 1,000-member professional association founded in 1992 (www.narth.com).


This is an organization of over 1,000 professionals who do indeed adhere to different views than are "popular" with gay advocates. In fact, my understanding is that it was founded, in part, to offset continuing cliams by the APA that " no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

According to NARTH itself:

"NARTH was founded in 1992 by Benjamin Kaufman, Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi. In an article titled 'In Defense of the Need for Honest Dialogue,' Kaufman wrote that Socarides, Nicolosi and himself founded NARTH because the APA and similar professional organizations "had totally stifled the scientific inquiry that would be necessary to stimulate a discussion [about homosexuality]." Narth's homepage is given above for anyone interested.*

Needless to say, NARTH has been subjected to frequent and vicious attacks by gay activist groups. NARTH members have their own viewpoint, and are no doubt somewhat "biased" by that viewpoint, too. As was noted in an earlier post, the view now seems to be that virtually all "scientific research" on the topic is tainted by bias and no definite conclusions have been produced by that research. But any suggestion that NARTH members are biased while homosexual advocates are NOT biased is preposterous. Just as preposterous is the suggestion that any statement made by, or position taken by, NARTH is, ipsto facto, incorrect and unwarranted.


*NARTH has been gay-bashed so much that it's president has actually taken the time to address allegations that it is a right-wing, religious, gay-hating organization. If you go to the home page, about the first thing you'll see (upper left) is a link to a one or two page response to such allegations. Or, if you're interested, ya can just click here: https://www.narth.com/docs/addresses.html

In the interest of saving your time, I will make note of this sentence in the introduction: "Although some critics will remain skeptical and perhaps some even antagonistic, others desire accurate information." If you're not one of the "others," don't bother.

 

[billyshelby]

This is an organization of over 1,000 professionals who do indeed adhere to different views than are "popular" with gay advocates. In fact, my understanding is that it was founded, in part, to offset continuing cliams by the APA that " no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

According to the US Bureau of Labor, there were 22,000 psychiatrists and 170,000 psychologists employed in this country last year. NARTH doesn't specify what they mean by 'professional,' but lets just say they were all psychiatrists and psychologists. That would mean about half of 1 percent of all mental health professionals directly affiliate themselves with NARTH.

 

[TroutBum]

I'd suggest using one of these. I can't believe your floozie mother didn't tell you about them.

Nice. First a shot at my wife, then my mother. I'm all a flutter awaiting the inevitible "When I was screwing your dad last night, lol!" joke.

 

[David Stern]

I'm only posting this because I feel very left out of this thread.

But gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they have no souls. Duh.

 

[billyshelby]

Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Rekers in not a "founding member" of Narth. Here is a link to information about one of the three founding members, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

You're right. He was only on the Founding Board of the Family Research Council, and a former 'officer and scientific advisor' to NARTH. And earlier this year, he resigned from NARTH's board over allegations he solicited a male prostitute. Other than that, he has no connections to the organization.