DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[LnGrrrR]

You can't make a hypothetical out of something that has not been found or exist and try to pass it off as logical or rational. The gay gene has not been proven.

Of course it hasn't. But it sure shows that genetics plays an important factor.


This study isn't scientific proof of anything, as to which plays a role in homosexuality.

Tell me, even if the correlation were 100%, would you still believe the study? Or would you argue that there's no way to do such a study because of so many variables? If so, then there's no scientific data you'd actually accept, and you're leading people on a wild goose chase.


We don't know what were the sex of the twins in the study, so you can't take that study seriously.

What does the gender of a person have to do with which gender they prefer?


I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with talking to a moron like me online.

fify, and I don't know either.

[Blake]

how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?

:wakeup

[Ignignokt]

:wakeup

By not having a father figure.

[Ignignokt]

What does the gender of a person have to do with which gender they prefer?



Becuase it's important in this study. if a pair of paternal twins are of opposite sex, it can skew the sample as to where identical twins are very likely to be of same gender.

I can't illustrate anymore how important that is. I give up. You're a dumb moron, your first comments on this thread were idiotic and third rate.

[Blake]

By not having a father figure.

so you hate the single female parent too

[Blake]

Becuase it's important in this study. if a pair of paternal twins are of opposite sex, it can skew the sample as to where identical twins are very likely to be of same gender.

I can't illustrate anymore how important that is. I give up. You're a dumb moron, your first comments on this thread were idiotic and third rate.

I can't illustrate just how irrelevant the psuedo-scientific arguments you are trying to make really are for the sake of gay couple adoption.

[LnGrrrR]

By not having a father figure.

So you would not allow single parents to raise children as well?

[LnGrrrR]

Becuase it's important in this study. if a pair of paternal twins are of opposite sex, it can skew the sample as to where identical twins are very likely to be of same gender.

I can't illustrate anymore how important that is. I give up. You're a dumb moron, your first comments on this thread were idiotic and third rate.

I'm willing to bet that any neutral observer who saw both our posts would have to conclude that I provide more cogent analysis, while you provide more degenerate ramblings.

[jack sommerset]

I'm willing to bet that any neutral observer who saw both our posts would have to conclude that I provide more cogent analysis, while you provide more degenerate ramblings.

I like your takes LnGrrR but no freaken way. Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

[LnGrrrR]

I like your takes LnGrrR but no freaken way. Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

Jack, would you REALLY call yourself a neutral observer? :lol

[Blake]

Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

So you also hate the single female parent.

not much of a surprise.

[ChumpDumper]

Has gtown presented an argument based on anything other than his own prejudices?

No?

Just checking.

[Winehole23]

Man pissing on a random tree-stump, might be an opinion. You never know.

[Ignignokt]

So you would not allow single parents to raise children as well?

Like i said a million times, i don't want the govt getting involved in the adoption process, i leave that up to individuals.

ON the chance i'd give up a kid i helped into this world, i wouldn't give him to a single parent, i'd rather he go to a father/mother household.

[Ignignokt]

Has gtown presented an argument based on anything other than his own prejudices?

No?

Just checking.

My argument was that govt shouldn't ban homosexual adoption, but should let the private individual or agencies decide.

You weren't checking, just trolling.

[Ignignokt]

So you also hate the single female parent.

not much of a surprise.

that's funny, all the people on this thread who claim to be using logic in this thread including LNGRRR have been doing this all day. That is, trying to play psychologist and assign my opposition as hate, fear, loathe, or being concerned over gay people.

Instead of arguing the issue you chose to try to play an online quack.

[Ignignokt]

Man pissing on a random tree-stump, might be an opinion. You never know.

ughhh... pound sand bitch??

[Ignignokt]

I'm willing to bet that any neutral observer who saw both our posts would have to conclude that I provide more cogent analysis, while you provide more degenerate ramblings.

yOu've been reduced to betting, and iffing, but haven't been able to discuss anything with me. After stating that i don't want govt interference on gay adoption you still argue with me as if i do. You've used a flawed study to indicate nothing. Paternal twins where there are of pairs of opposite sex being used to study with same gender pair identical twins is not a good measure on anything. If anything, an honest observer, not "neutral", would know that.

Anyway about that neutral observer, that's a crock. Like this topic is not polarizing.

[Blake]

that's funny, all the people on this thread who claim to be using logic in this thread including LNGRRR have been doing this all day. That is, trying to play psychologist and assign my opposition as hate, fear, loathe, or being concerned over gay people.

Instead of arguing the issue you chose to try to play an online quack.

You assigned your opposition as loathing gay people without any help from me or anyone else from what I can tell:


Two men adopting a kid is nasty.

I don't really care about your personal feelings on the matter. I care about mine.

You claim that two men adopting kids is nasty. If that's true, I'm trying to figure out why that is.

So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up" and "a kid shouldn't see a man playing a feminine role in a relationship because it will mess him/her up".

Those arguments are beyond lame on their own, but I'm willing to listen and am open to changing my mind if you are able to provide any social studies regarding how kids can get mentally messed up by being subjected to these supposed nasty situations.

I'm betting you don't have any real studies you can refer to other than the ones that come blowing out of your asshole.

[Ignignokt]

You assigned your opposition as loathing gay people without any help from me or anyone else from what I can tell:



I don't really care about your personal feelings on the matter. I care about mine.

You claim that two men adopting kids is nasty. If that's true, I'm trying to figure out why that is.

So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up" and "a kid shouldn't see a man playing a feminine role in a relationship because it will mess him/her up".

Those arguments are beyond lame on their own, but I'm willing to listen and am open to changing my mind if you are able to provide any social studies regarding how kids can get mentally messed up by being subjected to these supposed nasty situations.

I'm betting you don't have any real studies you can refer to other than the ones that come blowing out of your asshole.

I didn't say that. Quit putting words into my mouth.

[Ignignokt]

A critique of why many gay parenting studies and literature is fataly flawed, by the bible thumping, fag hating Princeton University.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_06.pdf


Difficulty Finding Representative
Samples
Perhaps the most important such challenge is
that researchers have no complete listing of
gay and lesbian parents from which to draw
representative samples (probability samples,
as researchers call them). To find study participants,
they have often had to rely on
word-of-mouth referrals, advertisements,
and other recruiting tools that may produce
samples not at all like the full population of
gay and lesbian parents. All but one of the
studies we examined employed samples composed
of either totally or predominantly
white participants. Almost all the participants
were middle- to upper-middle-class, urban,
well educated, and “out.” Most were lesbians,
not gay men. Participants were often clustered
in a single place. It may be that most
same-sex parents are white, relatively affluent
lesbians, or it may be merely that these
parents are the easiest for researchers to find
and recruit, or both may be partly true. No
one knows. Absent probability samples, generalizing
findings is impossible.
Small Sample Sizes
Gay- and lesbian-headed families can be difficult
to locate, and funding for this research
has been sparse.12 Those factors and others
have forced researchers to deal with the challenge
of small samples. Most studies describing
the development of children raised in gay
or lesbian homes report findings on fewer
than twenty-five children, and most comparative
studies compare fewer than thirty children
in each of the groups studied. Other
things being equal, the smaller the number of
subjects in the groups studied, the harder it is
to detect differences between those groups.13



compared
with whom? Should a single lesbian
mother be compared with a single heterosexual
mother? If so, divorced or never married?
Should a two-mother family be compared
with a two-biological-parent family, a motherfather
family headed by one biological parent
and one stepparent, or a single-parent family?
It all depends on what the researcher
wants to know. Identifying appropriate comparison
groups has proved vexing, and no
consistent or wholly convincing approach has
emerged. Many studies mix family forms in
both their homosexual and heterosexual
groups, blurring the meaning of the comparison
being made. Some studies do not use
comparison groups at all and simply describe
children or adults in same-sex households.
Some, in fact, have argued that comparing
gay and straight families, no matter how
closely matched the groups, is inappropriate
inasmuch as it assumes a “heterosexual
norm” against which same-sex paren

[Blake]

I didn't say that. Quit putting words into my mouth.


Despite TW silly argument, what i say to that is, the real consequence to gay adoption is raising the kid in confusion and immorality.

It truly is disgusting for two men to pleasure themselves where nature has deemed it useful to pass fecal matter and toxic substances.

moreso, it is quite disturbing that men would have to submit themselves dominated to another man and give him oral sex.

so how does the kid know that one adopted dad gave the other dad oral sex?

if it wasn't because the kid walked in and these two lines of thought had nothing to do with each other, then for future reference, make two different posts so that the average reader doesn't come to such a conclusion.

[Blake]

A critique of why many gay parenting studies and literature is fataly flawed, by the bible thumping, fag hating Princeton University.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/15_02_06.pdf

13

I didn't ask for studies as to how gay parenting has been proven to be ok.

I asked for a study that proves gay parenting is nasty and/or how it can mentally mess up the kid.

[Ignignokt]

so how does the kid know that one adopted dad gave the other dad oral sex?

if it wasn't because the kid walked in and these two lines of thought had nothing to do with each other, then for future reference, make two different posts so that the average reader doesn't come to such a conclusion.

I never walked in on my parents to find out that they had sexual relationships. I logically concluded, that they were married, and i'm their biological son. I think kids of gay parents will have to draw conclusions on how they arrived there, and to what status their parents relationship is.

[Ignignokt]

I didn't ask for studies as to how gay parenting has been proven to be ok.

I asked for a study that proves gay parenting is nasty and/or how it can mentally mess up the kid.

WHat i provided was neither. All it said was that the current studies today are really flawed because you don't find list samples of gay couples who are parents, if you're a researcher you go by word of mouth, that lesbians are heavily sampled compared to gay couples, and that hetero relationships are more dynamic, and have their own differences.

You could learn to read.

[Ignignokt]

by dynamic, i mean different. You have married and non married, poor, step families and biologicaly linked families. To compare all of them to affluent white lesbian couples is scientifically unsound.

[Blake]

I never walked in on my parents to find out that they had sexual relationships. I logically concluded, that they were married, and i'm their biological son. I think kids of gay parents will have to draw conclusions on how they arrived there, and to what status their parents relationship is.

Really?

At what age did you conclude that your mom gave your dad oral pleasure?

[Blake]

WHat i provided was neither. All it said was that the current studies today are really flawed because you don't find list samples of gay couples who are parents, if you're a researcher you go by word of mouth, that lesbians are heavily sampled compared to gay couples, and that hetero relationships are more dynamic, and have their own differences.

You could learn to read.

I absolutely know how to read.

You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."

That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.

Now I'm asking you to back up that claim.

You could learn to back up claims or just simply say, "IMO, based on no real research."

[jack sommerset]

I absolutely know how to read.

You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."

That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.

Now I'm asking you to back up that claim.

You could learn to back up claims or just simply say, "IMO, based on no real research."

LOL@ Blake spewing, again. He never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty. You really do need to learn how to read.

[Ignignokt]

Really?

At what age did you conclude that your mom gave your dad oral pleasure?

:lmao, i can't conclude what specifics they do, only that they procreate and have sex. Gay men on the other hand are known to practice sodomy. And one would be hard pressed to find gay and lesbian couples who don't practice oral. lol!

[Ignignokt]

lol @ blake.

You want me to find a scientific study to back up my oppinion on the nastiness of gay sex and adoption?

I never claimed any research would back up or destroy an oppinion on the act of gay sex or adoption


lol blake!

[Ignignokt]

I've maintained that there are no studies out there that are scientific concerning gay adoption because of the small sample size.

[Winehole23]

ughhh... pound sand bitch??Go hump a sand castle, gtown.

[Winehole23]

You can pretend it's an adoption agency with liberal ideas about placement.

[ChumpDumper]

My argument was that govt shouldn't ban homosexual adoption, but should let the private individual or agencies decide.:lmao Leave it to you to deny your own arguments.


You weren't checking, just trolling.No, I was checking to see if you had any backbone.

You don't.

[Blake]

LOL@ Blake spewing, again. He never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty. You really do need to learn how to read.

Who never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty? me or gtown?

You need to learn to be clearer when using pronouns.

Of course, either way, neither of us never denied saying that, so I don't know what your point is.

You need to learn how to read and write better so that the average reader can figure out what your point is.

[Blake]

:lmao, i can't conclude what specifics they do, only that they procreate and have sex. Gay men on the other hand are known to practice sodomy. And one would be hard pressed to find gay and lesbian couples who don't practice oral. lol!

:lmao:lmao yet you can conclude that gays who practice sodomy regularly practice oral....

you know this how?

[Blake]

lol @ blake.

You want me to find a scientific study to back up my oppinion on the nastiness of gay sex and adoption?

I never claimed any research would back up or destroy an oppinion on the act of gay sex or adoption


lol blake!

lol @ gtown lol.

I figure as most do that you thinking gays being nasty was an opinion. I wanted to see if you were going to make an attempt to find some kind of research on it being nasty.

I would rather see what research you have that shows that having gay parents will keep a kid from being a healthy, productive member of society.

I bet you can't find any real research on it.

lol you! lol.

[LnGrrrR]

yOu've been reduced to betting, and iffing, but haven't been able to discuss anything with me. After stating that i don't want govt interference on gay adoption you still argue with me as if i do. You've used a flawed study to indicate nothing. Paternal twins where there are of pairs of opposite sex being used to study with same gender pair identical twins is not a good measure on anything. If anything, an honest observer, not "neutral", would know that.

Anyway about that neutral observer, that's a crock. Like this topic is not polarizing.

The original argument was not about gay adoption, but gay marriage.

Frankly, if you think gay adoption/marriage/sex/whatever is "nasty" or "icky" or "produces cooties", I don't care as long if you're not for laws preventing that sort of thing. :tu

The study shows that the closer the genetic link, the more likely that gay/straight tendencies correlate. Gender doesn't matter. Genetics do. I'm sure they tested all sorts of twins with all sorts of genders, and the key point is that the closer the gene relation, the closer the gay correlation.

[z0sa]

Gender doesn't matter. Genetics do.

Why doesn't gender matter? How do you find those two (genetics/gender) not intrinsically linked? Care to prove analytically that "gender doesn't matter"?

[jack sommerset]

Who never denied saying two men adopting kids is nasty? me or gtown?

You need to learn to be clearer when using pronouns.

Of course, either way, neither of us never denied saying that, so I don't know what your point is.

You need to learn how to read and write better so that the average reader can figure out what your point is.

Dumbass, he was refering to you putting words into his mouth when you said "So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up". He never said that.

He tried to provide you with information on gay parenting and/or how it can mentally mess up a kid, at your request. He tells you to learn how to read because you don't like the answers he is giving you. Instead of thanking him for trying to answer some questions you cry out like the little bitch you are:

"I absolutely know how to read.

You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."

That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.

This is when I chimed in. I was clearly pointing out to you he hasn't changed his tune that two men adopting kids is nasty. He never said those were the words you were putting in his mouth. I felt compelled to laugh at you.

You also said I that I hate single female parents. I don't.

[LnGrrrR]

Why doesn't gender matter? How do you find those two (genetics/gender) not intrinsically linked? Care to prove analytically that "gender doesn't matter"?

For the purposes of that study, gender did not matter. If I tell you that the closer the genetic link, the more the correlation, does it amtter whether they were different genders, or whether they were shorter or taller, or whether they were smarter or dumber?

If you want to argue that gender played a significant role, and that they misinterpreted the results, then make that argument. But if you're just saying, "Well, maybe they didn't control for this or that" then I'm not accepting it without some proof. I'm assuming that the study found that gender difference played a negligible/non-important link when it came to twin gender preference correlation.

But way to take one or two sentences out of the multiple posts to try and argue around that. :tu

[Blake]

Dumbass, he was refering to you putting words into his mouth when you said "So far, you have come up with: "the kid might walk in on the gay sex which will mess him/her up". He never said that.

right, I addressed that issue.

You need to learn how to read.


He tried to provide you with information on gay parenting and/or how it can mentally mess up a kid, at your request. He tells you to learn how to read because you don't like the answers he is giving you. Instead of thanking him for trying to answer some questions you cry out like the little bitch you are:

He provided a link as to why research on the positives of gay parenting is/can be flawed.

I don't thank my waitress for bringing me the wrong order either.



"I absolutely know how to read.

You said "Two men adopting kids is nasty."

That's not me trying to put words in your mouth. You said that.

This is when I chimed in. I was clearly pointing out to you he hasn't changed his tune that two men adopting kids is nasty. He never said those were the words you were putting in his mouth. I felt compelled to laugh at you.

I never alluded to him possibly having changed his tune. I responded to a particular post.

You absolutely suck at reading and writing and I am feeling compelled to laugh at you right now.

I think I will.

:lmao:lmao:lmao



You also said I that I hate single female parents. I don't.

Then Ignignokt didn't really hit it out of the park for you.

I think i will laugh at you again.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[jack sommerset]

right, I addressed that issue.

You need to learn how to read.



He provided a link as to why research on the positives of gay parenting is/can be flawed.

I don't thank my waitress for bringing me the wrong order either.




I never alluded to him possibly having changed his tune. I responded to a particular post.

You absolutely suck at reading and writing and I am feeling compelled to laugh at you right now.

I think I will.

:lmao:lmao:lmao




Then Ignignokt didn't really hit it out of the park for you.

I think i will laugh at you again.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Right, I re-addressed that with you because you are so confused about what you put in people mouths or should I say whose mouth. Perhaps this why you take offense to his gay parenting opinions. Are you planning on adopting? :lmao:lmao:lmao

He told you there is a small sample of gay parenting. I am willing to listen. Provide some links on studies that proves gays can be good parents and/or will not mess up kids mentally. Instead of acting like one.:lmao:lmao:lmao

You absolutly suck at reading and writing. You certainly don't comprehend what you can read. :lmao:lmao:lmao

Just because Ignignokt owned your whimpy bald ass on this subject doesn't mean I hate single female parents. Does it?

This falling down laughing thing is really cool, Blake. I think I will laugh at you some more.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[z0sa]

For the purposes of that study, gender did not matter.

Why not?


If I tell you that the closer the genetic link, the more the correlation, does it amtter whether they were different genders, or whether they were shorter or taller, or whether they were smarter or dumber?

Um, all those things matter. A study of such kind that didn't account for any of these things is pretty useless, in fact. It's actually laughable you'd imply they don't; or that many, many other factors aren't involved, especially in the socioeconomic spectrum.

I'll go further and say the researchers are demonstrating a bias towards demonstrating biological origins of homosexuality.


If you want to argue that gender played a significant role, and that they misinterpreted the results, then make that argument.

They didn't misinterpret the results. The results simply don't mean anything. They're incomplete. They lack a degree of empiricism. They aren't very useful for determining anything. And even then, the results (52%) are rather inconclusive, as gtown said.

Just because he's a retard most of the time doesn't change that fact.


But if you're just saying, "Well, maybe they didn't control for this or that" then I'm not accepting it without some proof.

Burden of proof is on you, not I. Why can't you answer these questions yourself?


I'm assuming that the study found that gender difference played a negligible/non-important link when it came to twin gender preference correlation.

There's absolutely every reason to assume the opposite. Males and females are different (this should be obvious), especially in terms of biochemistry. A large part of the reason men develop male sex organs is secretion of testosterone while in the womb, for example. Critical thinkers realize these factors exists and don't make any of your assumptions when it comes to gender.


But way to take one or two sentences out of the multiple posts to try and argue around that. :tu

Because that "simple assumption" you make leads me to believe you don't know much about gender differences, past women having vaginas and dudes having dicks.

It goes, way, way, way deeper than that.

Not only that, I've made it clear that environment determines sexuality in most people; at least, that's where the vast majority of current research has pointed, for quite some time now.

Anyone arguing otherwise faces a steep uphill climb that flies in the face of today's most current research.

[z0sa]

BTW, I don't think you even know what the article is about.

On reading, I realized it occurred with ONLY gay men. And in the very first paragraph, they immediately concede that other factors are important. This implies they in fact, did not control for any other factors;

an incomplete, inconsequential study.

Another key point you've either ignored or simply missed:

The study does not even reveal exactly how they selected their sample! They concede the twin studies may not even represent twins accurately whatsoever, but still somehow make estimates with their incomplete analysis.

Their ad to attract participants from gay interest publications implies quite a bit, as well. These types of surveys never have much meaning, since they rely on only a select portion of the target population that probably goes undefined by the researchers. You may be wondering how scientists could ever find a truly random sample of gay men without inherent environmental issues in the search; the truth is, they usually (if not always) can't.

[Blake]

Right, I re-addressed that with you because you are so confused about what you put in people mouths or should I say whose mouth. Perhaps this why you take offense to his gay parenting opinions. Are you planning on adopting? :lmao:lmao:lmao

His post was poorly worded. I was not the only one that took it as an assumption that sooner or later a kid would walk in on the gay parents having oral sex.

Sidenote, he still has yet to explain how he knows that gays that practice sodomy also regularly practice oral sex.

Although his poorly worded post has nothing to do with my takes on gay marriage, I take little to no offense to his opinion. I think it's sad people are this ignorant.


He told you there is a small sample of gay parenting. I am willing to listen.

I've seen the studies from the small samples. I am also willing to listen. Yippee.


Provide some links on studies that proves gays can be good parents and/or will not mess up kids mentally. Instead of acting like one.:lmao:lmao:lmao

Proving that gays can be good parents is not equal to proving that gay parents can mess kids up mentally. Learn to read.


Just because Ignignokt owned your whimpy bald ass on this subject doesn't mean I hate single female parents. Does it?

You agreeing with him means it does.


This falling down laughing thing is really cool, Blake. I think I will laugh at you some more.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Cool. I will stand over you, point and laugh at you while you are on the ground.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

[jack sommerset]

His post was poorly worded. I was not the only one that took it as an assumption that sooner or later a kid would walk in on the gay parents having oral sex.

Sidenote, he still has yet to explain how he knows that gays that practice sodomy also regularly practice oral sex.

Although his poorly worded post has nothing to do with my takes on gay marriage, I take little to no offense to his opinion. I think it's sad people are this ignorant.



I've seen the studies from the small samples. I am also willing to listen. Yippee.



Proving that gays can be good parents is not equal to proving that gay parents can mess kids up mentally. Learn to read.



You agreeing with him means it does.



Cool. I will stand over you, point and laugh at you while you are on the ground.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

HAHAHA Idiot

You determined that I hate all single white female parents because I said to LnGrrr that Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

Son, listen. Your conclusion makes zero sense. I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's because you are stupid. All the other stupid bullshit you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a fucking tool.

[LnGrrrR]

You may be wondering how scientists could ever find a truly random sample of gay men without inherent environmental issues in the search; the truth is, they usually (if not always) can't.

That's the problem; no study in this day and age can probably accurately predict the gay population. I don't think that means we should just abandon trying to take polls/research these factors though.

The 52% is significant, because it's much higher than the percentages found between other types of twins.

You're bringing up gender is important, and I'm not saying it isn't for the purposes of sexuality, but for the genetics=closer correlation aspect. Why would there be such a higher prevalence of correlation in the study? If it is related to environment (nurture instead of nature), did the scientists just happen to pick sets of genetic twins that were raised in the right environment to become gay while picking fraternal twins that weren't raised in the right environment?

Tell me, if you were to run a study determining whether genetics correlated to gay/straight tendencies, how would you go about controlling for all related factors? I don't see how it's a possibility.

[Blake]

You determined that I hate all single white female parents because I said to LnGrrr that Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

white?

more reading comprehension fail.

HAHAHAHAHAHA


Son, listen. Your conclusion makes zero sense. I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's because you are stupid. All the other stupid bullshit you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a fucking tool.

After I asked 'what about lesbian parents' Ignigkot stated they need a male father figure (or something similar).

I said "so you also hate the single mother"........which would mean the idea of the single mother to some......to which there has been no response.

You are slobbering all over his out of the park balls, therefore it's quite simple son........if you are riding that hard on his e-cock, then you must also hate the idea of the single mother.

Again, should be a simple concept to understand, even for a fucking dumbshit like you.

[Blake]

And one would be hard pressed to find gay and lesbian couples who don't practice oral. lol!



yet you can conclude that gays who practice sodomy regularly practice oral....

you know this how?


Just because Ignignokt owned your whimpy bald ass on this subject

more reading comrehension fail

you are a dumb fucker

[jack sommerset]

Watch how easy it is to say "I made a mistake".

I accidentally added white in the last post. Really silly of me. I really should proof read a little better but sometimes I'm doing a few different things at one time. Sorry.

Now it's your turn. This is what it should sould like.

"Jack, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I accused you of hating single female parents. I'm upset because I have been getting owned in this thread. I jumped to conclusions. I know there has not been any known case studies on gay men raising kids. Lets face it, only 1 percent of the population is gay but I know in my heart they can do it. I will not accept anyones opinions contradicting my opinions without facts. I know, I know I can't prove my opinion either but I'm a know-it-all cocksucker. Again, you said nothing for me to believe you hate single female parents. I'm sorry brah. I made a mistake"

[George Gervin's Afro]

HAHAHA Idiot

You determined that I hate all single white female parents because I said to LnGrrr that Ignignokt pretty much hit this gay parenting thing out of the park.

Son, listen. Your conclusion makes zero sense. I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise. It's because you are stupid. All the other stupid bullshit you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a fucking tool.

:lmao at jack calling someone stupid and a tool....

[Blake]

Watch how easy it is to say "I made a mistake".

I accidentally added white in the last post. Really silly of me. I really should proof read a little better but sometimes I'm doing a few different things at one time. Sorry.

seems easier to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA idiot".


Now it's your turn. This is what it should sould like.

"Jack, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I accused you of hating single female parents. I'm upset because I have been getting owned in this thread. I jumped to conclusions. I know there has not been any known case studies on gay men raising kids. Lets face it, only 1 percent of the population is gay but I know in my heart they can do it. I will not accept anyones opinions contradicting my opinions without facts. I know, I know I can't prove my opinion either but I'm a know-it-all cocksucker. Again, you said nothing for me to believe you hate single female parents. I'm sorry brah. I made a mistake"

Jack, I'm sorry you're an idiot.

I'm not trying to prove my opinion.....I havent even given my opinion.....I'm only asking how someone else arrived at his.

I made no mistake. You said Ignignokt hit it out of the park with the gays.

When asked about the lesbians parents, he said kids need that male father figure. You either made a mistake about him hitting it out of the park or you hate on the single female parents too.

Let's get some clarification: which do you yourself think is better for a kid: growing up in a single female parent home or a two parent lesbian home and why?

[mookie2001]

Nobody has said what happens to these kids who grow up in a loving two parent gay household besides they miss out on a X influence

What's the outrage for?


To me they just grow up not to be Protestant neocons


And that's the scary part

[LnGrrrR]

Still waiting for zosa's brilliant reply.

[CosmicCowboy]

damn. The faggot thread just won't die. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

What's funny is, I don't think one conservative has actually commented on the RULING itself, on the basis of it. Everyone is just pulling out the ol' "Gays will murder your children and devour their bones!" card.

[mookie2001]

damn. The faggot thread just won't die. :lolYou lost bitch


And they're coming to recruit your fairyass kids

[z0sa]

Still waiting for zosa's brilliant reply.

I actually like you, which is why I will say this: everything I could brilliantly state, I've already brilliantly stated.

Your article means little, if anything. The study itself is inconclusive. The idea behind is has been called out as biased.

I can point out why 52% is inconclusive, for example, even though it's fairly obvious: if a gay gene existed, then identical twins would inherently have it in their nature, therefore the number would need to be much higher, ie close, if not all the way at or near 100%, to prove anything.

I have a question: if there's a "gay gene", as you (without any formal evidence) state, is there then a "straight" gene? Does this mean no one is in control of his or her sexuality?

The majority, if not all of behavior research reveals information (including a form of "harder" statistics that make yours seem disingenuous) contrary to such a notion.

That article estimates that nature could play as much as 70% of the part in twins, if the sample they selected accurately represented gay male twins (it doesn't). Care to explain that one in your own words?

So, I repeat: 52%, even using the far oversimplified analysis as your "proof", is inconclusive. So any points you've made, or they make, are therefore inconclusive and/or disingenuous stretches, far stretches at that.

[MannyIsGod]

I can point out why 52% is inconclusive, for example, even though it's fairly obvious: if a gay gene existed, then identical twins would inherently have it in their nature, therefore the number would need to be much higher, ie close, if not all the way at or near 100%, to prove anything.


I don't have a problem with most of your post but this is completely and utterly false.

[LnGrrrR]

I can point out why 52% is inconclusive, for example, even though it's fairly obvious: if a gay gene existed, then identical twins would inherently have it in their nature, therefore the number would need to be much higher, ie close, if not all the way at or near 100%, to prove anything.

The problem with that thinking is that it completely discounts the "nurture" aspect.


I have a question: if there's a "gay gene", as you (without any formal evidence) state, is there then a "straight" gene? Does this mean no one is in control of his or her sexuality?

Not at all. I look at it as a TENDENCY towards gayness. Look at alcoholism. If alcoholism runs in your family, you will have a greater proclivity/tendency to become an alcoholic, correct?

Does this mean that if my father is an alcoholic, then I should be one too? Of course not. Does this mean I can't control my drinking? Of course not. But it does lead to a greater chance for me to become an alcoholic.


So, I repeat: 52%, even using the far oversimplified analysis as your "proof", is inconclusive. So any points you've made, or they make, are therefore inconclusive and/or disingenuous stretches, far stretches at that.

I think we're talking on two different wavelengths. I'm not saying that there's some gay gene out there and BAM! you have to be gay. I'm just saying that the evidence shows that genetics can play a role in a person's selection of gender preference, just how some people are genetically predisposed towards alcoholism, cancer, fast metabolisms, intelligence, etc etc.

And I apologize for snarkiness; it's been a heck of a week at work. :)

[z0sa]

I don't have a problem with most of your post but this is completely and utterly false.

Look, I'm going off his study, solely. You and I know that nature/nurture is the oft argued concept regarding this. Which is why i say, that judging from the study's lack of empiricism, that it'd need to show a very high number of "gay gene twin" correspondents to really, really matter in any sort of significant way.

If you want to entertain a true nature/nurture argument, unlike any other in this thread, then I am down and fair game, and easily and readily admit my statement to lngrrr is oversimplified grossly. Please, understand the angle I'm taking, which is proving that the study means little without such conclusive evidence.

[LnGrrrR]

Look, I'm going off his study, solely. You and I know that nature/nurture is the oft argued concept regarding this. Which is why i say, that judging from the study's lack of empiricism, that it'd need to show a very high number of "gay gene twin" correspondents to really, really matter in any sort of significant way.


Considering that non-fraternal twins have a correlation ratio of 11% or so, then 50+% correlation is statistically significant. I don't know what you're not getting about this.

If I said I could give you 50% interest in your bank account, would you say, "No thanks, I'm getting 12% in my bank, so it's not that big a deal."? :lol

[z0sa]

Considering that non-fraternal twins have a correlation ratio of 11% or so, then 50+% correlation is statistically significant. I don't know what you're not getting about this.

If I said I could give you 50% interest in your bank account, would you say, "No thanks, I'm getting 12% in my bank, so it's not that big a deal."? :lol

Go back, reread my posts, reread them again, do whatever you have to do to realize that if the conduction of a survey itself cannot be trusted, then its results aren't trustworthy either.

:lol @ implying I don't understand simple math while you spout out whack numbers from some bullshit survey.

[LnGrrrR]

Go back, reread my posts, reread them again, do whatever you have to do to realize that if the conduction of a survey itself cannot be trusted, then its results aren't trustworthy either.

:lol @ implying I don't understand simple math while you spout out whack numbers from some bullshit survey.

And like I asked earlier, given your criteria, would you consider ANY study conducted on a such a topic to be conducted "properly"? Of course there are going to be sampling issues when you're polling/testing a smaller population. But using those issues to discount the study 100% is ridiculous.

Also, it wasn't just a survey, but a study based on participants to a survey.

[z0sa]

And like I asked earlier, given your criteria, would you consider ANY study conducted on a such a topic to be conducted "properly"?

Probably not. Like I stated earlier.


Of course there are going to be sampling issues when you're polling/testing a smaller population. But using those issues to discount the study 100% is ridiculous.

The population is undefined, because it's only those who answered the ad, first of all, and second, it's only those who were aware of the ad.

Starting to see the much bigger picture?


Also, it wasn't just a survey, but a study based on participants to a survey.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I don't give a shit about the survey, study, whatever the hell you want to call it. It's inconclusive, inconsequential, and biased. Argue about it with someone who actually takes such a thing seriously.

[z0sa]

And like I asked earlier, given your criteria, would you consider ANY study conducted on a such a topic to be conducted "properly"? Of course there are going to be sampling issues when you're polling/testing a smaller population. But using those issues to discount the study 100% is ridiculous.

Also, it wasn't just a survey, but a study based on participants to a survey.


Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population.

They don't reveal what the ads actually asked for: check
They assume certain principles: check
they don't reveal which principles exactly they are assuming: check
they assume things about how well the sample is formed instead of establishing hard evidence to build on: check (nearly impossible anyway)
they used magazine/publication survey as their basis, commonly known throughout all stats fields as the worst kind of survey possible and never to be trusted: check
their exact logic for 30-70% estimates goes unexplained: check
one can make an easy argument they are biased, based on the article: check

"I'm not terribly surprised at the conclusions," [Gregory Carey, assistant professor who took no part in the survey's administration or the study itself] said. "I think they're very well founded."

Yeah, he doesn't sound like he went into this interview with any kind of bias. And why does his opinion somehow qualify this work's validity again? Sounds like the author of this article put a spin on it, one you fell pretty easily for.

I won't even start on how propaganda-ey and biased "assumptions on the prevalence of homosexuality" sounds. It should be obvious.



.. you were saying?

What I find craziest is how incredibly sure you are of this ridiculous study's proof (as if it proved anything). LnGrrrr, alert the fucking authorities that you found conclusive proof for the gay gene. Don't mind the fact that no such gene has ever been proven to exist, that the circumstantial evidence needed to prove it probably can't be attained thanks to good ol' human error, or that researcher bias almost always infiltrates these things from their moment of conception to the very end. I don't want to spoil the party.

[Ignignokt]

LNGRRR got reamed!!!

[LnGrrrR]

What I find craziest is how incredibly sure you are of this ridiculous study's proof (as if it proved anything). LnGrrrr, alert the fucking authorities that you found conclusive proof for the gay gene. Don't mind the fact that no such gene has ever been proven to exist, that the circumstantial evidence needed to prove it probably can't be attained thanks to good ol' human error, or that researcher bias almost always infiltrates these things from their moment of conception to the very end. I don't want to spoil the party.

I wasn't incredibly sure of the results; I just found IG's replies to be asinine. At least you're willing to back up the reasons for why you don't trust the study. The reasons you provided make sense; I can see why you don't. The whole "it would have to be 100% correlation" is what was bugging me, because that makes no sense.

As we've both stated, it's nigh impossible to get a good survey at this time. I'm willing to side with it, you're willing to side against it. At this moment, without other studies by peers to either back up or dismantle the claim, there's no way to tell who's right.

Ig's claim that there is no evidence was why I posted that study in the first place. Certainly there IS some evidence for the genetics view, it's just not lock-solid. (Obviously, or more people would be trumpeting it.)

[LnGrrrR]

Also, still waiting on any comment about the actual nature of the ruling from conservatives :lol

[Ignignokt]

I wasn't incredibly sure of the results; I just found IG's replies to be asinine. At least you're willing to back up the reasons for why you don't trust the study. The reasons you provided make sense; I can see why you don't. The whole "it would have to be 100% correlation" is what was bugging me, because that makes no sense.

As we've both stated, it's nigh impossible to get a good survey at this time. I'm willing to side with it, you're willing to side against it. At this moment, without other studies by peers to either back up or dismantle the claim, there's no way to tell who's right.

Ig's claim that there is no evidence was why I posted that study in the first place. Certainly there IS some evidence for the genetics view, it's just not lock-solid. (Obviously, or more people would be trumpeting it.)

moron, all he did was add research bias amongst the things i had greivance with.

You sucked hardcore, admit it.

[LnGrrrR]

moron, all he did was add research bias amongst the things i had greivance with.

You sucked hardcore, admit it.

If you had stated that in a coherent way, as zosa did, I would have agreed amicably to disagree. Let's face it Ig, you're not one to be polite very often.

[Yonivore]

Also, still waiting on any comment about the actual nature of the ruling from conservatives :lol
I think requiring private employers and mandating government employers to make employment or provision of services decisions (and the benefit of exemptions) based on marital status is unconstitutional.

Marriage should play no larger role in government (and vice versa) than that required by law in settling disputes between contracting parties.

[LnGrrrR]

I think requiring private employers and mandating government employers to make employment or provision of services decisions (and the benefit of exemptions) based on marital status is unconstitutional.

Marriage should play no larger role in government (and vice versa) than that required by law in settling disputes between contracting parties.

I somewhat agree, that if they could get rid of "marriage" entirely as anything but a religious/personal function, that'd be cool with me.

However, anything to say about the actual ruling? Whereby if Massachusetts law allows civil marriages, then DOMA has no say on their law, because traditionally, marriage has been seen as a STATE function, not a federal one.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

[Yonivore]

I somewhat agree, that if they could get rid of "marriage" entirely as anything but a religious/personal function, that'd be cool with me.

However, anything to say about the actual ruling? Whereby if Massachusetts law allows civil marriages, then DOMA has no say on their law, because traditionally, marriage has been seen as a STATE function, not a federal one.

Do you agree with this interpretation?
Honestly, I haven't paid that close attention; I'm not familiar with the ruling except that I understood it only found 1 of the DOMA sections (Section 3) unconstitutional. But, I don't even know what that means.

And, I somewhat disagree with your statement advocating eliminating marriage entirely as anything but a religious/personal function.

People are going to disagree and relationships break down. I think marriage -- at least the dissolution of marriage -- belongs in contract law.

Enforcing verbal contracts and that whole -- "'til death do you part" -- nonsense would take on a whole new meaning.

[z0sa]

lnGrrr is a good man. He chooses his spots well, and realizes that some of his evidence is debatable. Good man.

[Ignignokt]

If you had stated that in a coherent way, as zosa did, I would have agreed amicably to disagree. Let's face it Ig, you're not one to be polite very often.

Lol, wrong. He just buttered you up, by starting with, LNGRRrrr you're a nice guy and all but........"

You couldn't take anything i said objectively, specially with bringing in shitty arguments from the beginning, and accusing me of supoorting banning gay marriage. You're whole argument was emotional, and baseless, and your shit poll with shit bias was shit.

Dude, you lost when you brought up that shitty poll. :lol

I'm not like zosa, i don't pretend to like you or take your shit seriously. I can't give each fool a chance of redemption, i'd never have time to get anything else done.

[Ignignokt]

lnGrrr is a good man. He chooses his spots well, and realizes that some of his evidence is debatable. Good man.

exhibit a

[z0sa]

except I'm not pretending.

[LnGrrrR]

You couldn't take anything i said objectively, specially with bringing in shitty arguments from the beginning, and accusing me of supoorting banning gay marriage. You're whole argument was emotional, and baseless, and your shit poll with shit bias was shit.


Yup, you sure are a model of restraint and civility on these boards.

[Winehole23]

@z0sa:

Everything's a one way street with iggy. He craves respect but gives away none. It is probably inconceivable to him that your hat tip to LNGR was sincere.

[z0sa]

I've gathered as much; believe it or not, ig has made a semi-common habit of attempting to troll me, by name. Starting threads about me and stuff.

[LnGrrrR]

I've gathered as much; believe it or not, ig has made a semi-common habit of attempting to troll me, by name. Starting threads about me and stuff.

I don't think Ig intentionally trolls; I just think he has no idea how to debate things without resorting to logical fallacies and emotive outbursts. He's like that one guy at the party that tries to tell a joke, but he's intrinsically unfunny; he doesn't get why his jokes keep falling flat precisely because of his lack of humor.

[Ignignokt]

@z0sa:

Everything's a one way street with iggy. He craves respect but gives away none. It is probably inconceivable to him that your hat tip to LNGR was sincere.

I remember;
pound sand bitch! :lol
your attempts at doing the same thing your whining about, your lame attempts to play forum nanny and come off as as an impartial observer.

What's funny is that i haven't demanded i get treated with respect in this thread or another. It's Winehole who has been the one who got his rep for whining about the lack of civility on these boards. I don't give a shit. I look at the people who log on here and have concluded long ago that there's no point in demanding such things.

Infact, on this very same thread I had a civilized debate with manny and jekka, and I stated my arguments and position concerning gay adoption. It wasn't until Spurminator and LNGRRrrr came here and started throwing around strawman to argue with me. For one, I'm against banning gay adoption, yet LNGGRRR and Spurminator made snarky comments about me as if i wanted to ban gay adoption. So i see two possibilities here;

These idiots either didn't read my argument and decided to condescend from the get go, or they intentionally argued strawmen because they're douchebags.

And about zosa, I can agree with the guy and still think he's a giant asskissing douche. He's done it before, and he has quite the reputation around here for being such. I have real life friends, and don't desire to make some on the internet. I can see why he would try to befriend an idiot like LNGRRrrr. And i don't blame him for it, he has none in real life or on the internets.

But, there's nothing wrong with that, with friends like Zosa and Winehole, why does LNGrrr bother to purchase toiletpaper?

[Winehole23]

I remember; :lol
your attempts at doing the same thing your whining about, your lame attempts to play forum nanny and come off as as an impartial observer. I bitch, like everyone else. Only in your mind does that make me a nanny.

Also, I never claimed to be impartial. I don't know where you get that. That's another strawman.

[LnGrrrR]

Ig, could you actually point out to me where in this thread I slammed you for wanting to ban gay marriage? I don't recall doing so. In fact, a few pages ago I said that if you think gay marriage is gross, but you don't want to ban it, then I'm fine with that. Even gave you a thumbs up.

Perhaps you're mistaken? I did berate CC earlier, but only because he admitted his stance was irrational but still holds it.

[LnGrrrR]

The original argument was not about gay adoption, but gay marriage.

Frankly, if you think gay adoption/marriage/sex/whatever is "nasty" or "icky" or "produces cooties", I don't care as long if you're not for laws preventing that sort of thing. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

My argument was about the study all along, and perceived differences in the importance of it. You guys think it's biased and discount the evidence, I do not. As I said upthread, no way to know for sure unless this research is duplicated by peers in the scientific community.