DOMA ruled uncons utional

[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 er

[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 sucker. 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 bull you continue to spew about is boring me. You're a ing tool.

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 sucker. 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 got thread just won't die.

[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 got thread just won't die.

You lost


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."?

[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."?

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.

@ implying I don't understand simple math while you spout out whack numbers from some bull 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.

@ implying I don't understand simple math while you spout out whack numbers from some bull 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 about the survey, study, whatever the 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 sexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of sexuality 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 sexuality" 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 ing 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 cir stantial 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 ing 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 cir stantial 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

[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

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 uncons utional.

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 uncons utional.

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?