Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Poor benighted people afraid of gay fellow citizens.

Nodoby is afraid of faggots.

 

[bodecea]

Plus it's a terrible message to send to children even if they are the same gender as their fake "mom or dad" that "that other gender isn't necessary". It's TOXIC to society as a whole to raise generations of children so stripped of their inaliable rights and so skewed by such a one-sided representation of society at large.

If children have an 'inaliable' right to their mom and dad- how come we allow parents to divorce?

And why are women allowed to have children without having a husband?

 

[Syriusly]

Poor benighted people afraid of gay fellow citizens.

Nodoby is afraid of faggots.

Why is Nodoby afraid of f*ggots? Is he also afraid of n*ggers? Is he also afraid of c*nts?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So... to hear the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality tell it...

Normality: the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected and 'normal': conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected, is perfectly fine, except where it is used to define something that deviates from that standard, where the deviation occurs naturally... because THEN... it's perfectly normal.

Take a wheel bearing which naturally, over time was worn by millions upon millions of revolutions, with the natural effects of friction grinding away sufficient material from the bearing that it no longer adequately serves its purpose... leaving the wheel to deviate from the standard essential to its purpose.

Using the reasoning of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... that worn out bearing is PERFECTLY NORMAL! Thus should never be considered a threat the purpose of the wheel that it serves or to the purpose of those who use the wheel... .

Again... Sexual Abnormality presents as a symptom of abnormal reasoning. And it is THERE wherein the risk is realized.

 

[Silhouette]

If children have an 'inaliable' right to their mom and dad- how come we allow parents to divorce?

And why are women allowed to have children without having a husband?

Well if we were talking about what is or isn't allowed, your strawmen would have substance. Instead though, we are talking about states' rights to INCENTIVIZE the ideal situation for children in a home. Gay marriage means that a child in that house 100% of the time will be missing:

1. One of their blood parents

2. The key role of an opposite gendered parent in their life....or same gendered as they, depending on their gender.

 

[Syriusly]

If children have an 'inaliable' right to their mom and dad- how come we allow parents to divorce?

And why are women allowed to have children without having a husband?

Well if we were talking about what is or isn't allowed, your strawmen would have substance. Instead though, we are talking about states' rights to INCENTIVIZE the ideal situation for children in a home. Gay marriage means that a child in that house 100% of the time will be missing:

1. One of their blood parents

2. The key role of an opposite gendered parent in their life....or same gendered as they, depending on their gender.

But marriage between a man and a woman doesn't incentivize that at all.

That is the reason why that argument fails in courts.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman doesn't mean that they will have children.
Doesn't mean that if they have children that they will be the biological child of one or the other of them.

Now- preventing divorce of parents with children would accomplish that goal.

But oddly enough none of the people who cry 'What about the children' ever suggest preventing divorce.

No- the opponents of gay marriage just despise gays and don't give a damn about children.

 

[Syriusly]

So... to hear the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality tell it...

Normad.

Bat guano crazy.

 

[Inevitable]

Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys":

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 435 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That thread has more than 33,000 views and sports one of the largest poll turnouts EVER at USMB. See how over 80% of the quiet majority voted..

Meanwhile this topic:

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .
They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.

This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...

Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.

We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.

This belongs in the conspiracy forum.

Some how some gay dictator got control over everything from behind the scenes?

 

[Inevitable]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

Opinion Noted.

 

[Inevitable]

Once again- revisionist history- aka lies from Silhouette.

All anyone has to do to confirm what the OP says is to follow those links or google for themselves "Leona Tyler principle" & "Cummings". They can read for themselves how the APA decided that facts, hard data and numbers don't matter anymore in pyschology.

What facts do you have that homosexuality should be considered a mental illness?

 

[Inevitable]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.

I know you list your ability to take the proverbial high ground. You aren't ever getting it back.

Clutching on to something everybody under the sun knows to be a lie only further damages your credibility.

You aren't too be argued with, you are to be mocked for your stupidity.

 

[Silhouette]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.
.

Yep, no psychosis to worry about..

 

[Inevitable]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.
.

Yep, no psychosis to worry about..

Idiot didn't even know what he's talking about.

Proof positive you should only be mocked.

 

[Syriusly]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.
.

Yep, no psychosis to worry about..

Silhouette thinks people are psychotic if they dress up and have fun....

the only images she doesn't find objectionable are ones of her people

 

[Inevitable]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.
.

Yep, no psychosis to worry about..

Silhouette thinks people are psychotic if they dress up and have fun....

the only images she doesn't find objectionable are ones of her people
View attachment 33878

Scum like that should not be argued with. Clearly he is to stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

They should be mocked.

 

[Syriusly]

I love the whole "waa waa waa the Apa was taken over by gays" conspiracy theory.

Nobody has, as of this date been able to discuss the psychosis caused by homosexuality.

Without psychosis, why call it an illness? The APA was challenged, they couldn't deliver. That is how it works.
.

Yep, no psychosis to worry about..

Silhouette thinks people are psychotic if they dress up and have fun....

the only images she doesn't find objectionable are ones of her people
View attachment 33878

Scum like that should not be argued with. Clearly he is to stupid to formulate a coherent argument.

They should be mocked.

Until proven otherwise, I presume that Silhouette is the guy holding the sign

 

[Stephanie]

The left/libs/dems has cast god out of their lives so their new gods is some (human being) Scientist who has been known to be WRONG on many things in the past

but all of a sudden we are all suppose to bow down to some person because they have "SCIENTIST" in their JOB description

how frikken scary is that

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

Look everyone, we have another "Vegetarian" who can't stop describing "steak".

 

[JoeB131]

The left/libs/dems has cast god out of their lives so their new gods is some (human being) Scientist who has been known to be WRONG on many things in the past

but all of a sudden we are all suppose to bow down to some person because they have "SCIENTIST" in their JOB description

how frikken scary is that

No, we take scientists seriously because they produce things with measurable results.

Hey remember when people used to burn witches because the Bible say, "Thou Shall not Suffer a Witch to Live". It was in the bible. God Said so. So thousands of women were tortured into confessing to witchcraft and subsequently burned at the stake or hung.

Except. There's no such thing as "witches". Not really. Not even you, Staph.

 

[JoeB131]

Children have an inaliable right to have the gender that they are represented as an example "as parent" in their lives. States have an inaliable right to disincentivize an environment for children where that situation will 100% of the time not be true. Plus it's a terrible message to send to children even if they are the same gender as their fake "mom or dad" that "that other gender isn't necessary". It's TOXIC to society as a whole to raise generations of children so stripped of their inaliable rights and so skewed by such a one-sided representation of society at large.

If you are whining about the "Children", I think you need to be less worried about the gays and more worried about the deadbeat dads who run out on their wives/girlfriends and leave children in their wake.

But you don't give a fuck about kids. You j ust want yet another excuse to rationalize your homophobia.