Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
only in rightwingnuthackworld
no doubt you know this from your *ahem* in-depth experience with the gay community?
As a matter of fact - yes I do know this from my "in depth" experience . In depth being studies, literature, reading , writing, teaching, counseling . I keep a baseball bat as a memento of my counseling experiences .
On this subject, "you know nothing, Greenbean Snow"
As a matter of fact - yes I do know this from my "in depth" experience . In depth being studies, literature, reading , writing, teaching, counseling . I keep a baseball bat as a memento of my counseling experiences .
Cool story, bro.
Don't Bro me if you don't know me - faggot
What a charmer you are with that FABULOUS personality. 
As a matter of fact - yes I do know this from my "in depth" experience . In depth being studies, literature, reading , writing, teaching, counseling . I keep a baseball bat as a memento of my counseling experiences .
On this subject, "you know nothing, Greenbean Snow"
Yet nobody can refute the facts I present -Nobody . Nobody can refute Silhouette - Nobody can refute , or debunk any of the Facts presented ovewr the pat several months - you just throw around noise and hope to detract from reality. You're one sorry ass pack of queer losers , you've lost of every topic thrown out every single MF topic.
Losers
On this subject, "you know nothing, Greenbean Snow"
Yet nobody can refute the facts I present -Nobody . Nobody can refute Silhouette - Nobody can refute , or debunk any of the Facts presented ovewr the pat several months - you just throw around noise and hope to detract from reality. You're one sorry ass pack of queer losers , you've lost of every topic thrown out every single MF topic.
Losers
You don't need to sign your posts in red....we know.
On this subject, "you know nothing, Greenbean Snow"
Yet nobody can refute the facts I present -Nobody . Nobody can refute Silhouette - Nobody can refute , or debunk any of the Facts presented ovewr the pat several months - you just throw around noise and hope to detract from reality. You're one sorry ass pack of queer losers , you've lost of every topic thrown out every single MF topic.
Losers
You don't need to sign your posts in red....we know.
I'd like to know what your definition of "debunked" is?Yes, just the text was enough to let us know that, no signature needed. Pretty much everything Sil has posted has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. Beanie's too. They don't care if they're wrong as long as they are really loud and really angry about it, someone will pay attention. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum in the parking lot.
I'd like to know what your definition of "debunked" is?Yes, just the text was enough to let us know that, no signature needed. Pretty much everything Sil has posted has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. Beanie's too. They don't care if they're wrong as long as they are really loud and really angry about it, someone will pay attention. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum in the parking lot.
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated
Debunked | Define Debunked at Dictionary.com
I'd like to know what your definition of "debunked" is?Yes, just the text was enough to let us know that, no signature needed. Pretty much everything Sil has posted has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. Beanie's too. They don't care if they're wrong as long as they are really loud and really angry about it, someone will pay attention. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum in the parking lot.
The same as everyone else:
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated
Debunked | Define Debunked at Dictionary.com
Which perfectly describes the unsubstantiated and subjective nonsense youve cited; and why such evidence has been appropriately rejected by the courts.
Yet you folks feel free to throw out "bigot" or "hater"
Incorrect.
To seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is in fact motivated only by animus toward gay Americans.
Just as was the case with Colorado’s Amendment 2, Utah’s Amendment 3…
And they call that motivated animus bigotry don't they?
Calling a bigot a bigot isn't anything like calling gays pedophiles, but they're out of bullets and throwing the gun at this point.
I'd like to know what your definition of "debunked" is?Yes, just the text was enough to let us know that, no signature needed. Pretty much everything Sil has posted has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. Beanie's too. They don't care if they're wrong as long as they are really loud and really angry about it, someone will pay attention. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum in the parking lot.
The same as everyone else:
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated
Debunked | Define Debunked at Dictionary.com
Which perfectly describes the unsubstantiated and subjective nonsense youve cited; and why such evidence has been appropriately rejected by the courts.
The Courts are a poor gauge of social injustce, on the topic of Mental Illness / Sexual Dysphoria which is exactly what the Gay Issue is truly about , pure science -OBJECTIVE SCIENCE - is the only true measurement of what seperates fact from fiction.
The so called "justice" system is a travesty which continuossly reverses and contradicts itself and a facet of Government which very few Americans have any confidence in http://www.nappp.org/pdf/nickcumno.pdf
The APA and Psychology Need Reform
Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D.
Presented as part of the panel, Psychology Needs Reform
APA Presidents Debate the 10 Amendments.
Former Presidents Frank Farley, Bonnie Strickland, & Nicholas Cummings
APA Convention, New Orleans, August 12, 2006
...In 1973 under President Leona Tyler the Council of Representatives and the Board of Directors established the principle that when we speak as psychologists we speak from research evidence and clinical experience and expertise. Without that, every psychologist is free to speak their opinion as a citizen through a myriad of advocacy organizations, but when we spoke as psychologists the evidence had to be there. To violate this rule the APA would risk loss of credibility, making it just another ideological voice clamoring to be heard in a sea of opinions. Those of us who followed Leona Tyler as APA presidents zealously guarded our scientific and clinical integrity, and for years psychology continued to enjoy public respect. Soon, however, the Leona Tyler Principle, which was never repealed, was repeatedly ignored and even trampled. It was inevitable that we lost credibility as a science and profession speaking from evidence, and we now are regarded as an opinionated body that is in a huge disconnect with the American public.
Worse, we are the only scientific/professional society ever censured (and I might add
unanimously so) by the United States House of Representatives. Most APA members are unaware of the event, and those who know seem to blame Dr. Laura Schlesinger who seized upon the publication by an APA journal of a meta-analysis and interview study of college students who had been sexually molested as children. The publication challenged the notion that these experiences had been deleterious, setting off a firestorm that culminated in the APA being summoned by a Congressional committee to explain its views on the effects of pedophilia. The public and the Congress are strongly in favor of academic freedom, but not at the risk of harm to their children. Apparently not realizing this, or dismissing it as unimportant, the APA testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives focused on academic freedom, thus relegating pedophilia to a subordinate role. So bad was the disconnect between psychologys leadership and American society that it was shocked when the censure motion passed unanimously, with even the two psychologist members of the House of Representatives abstaining rather than voting against it. http://www.nappp.org/pdf/nickcumno.pdf
The Courts are a poor gauge of social injustce, on the topic of Mental Illness / Sexual Dysphoria which is exactly what the Gay Issue is truly about , pure science -OBJECTIVE SCIENCE - is the only true measurement of what seperates fact from fiction.
The so called "justice" system is a travesty which continuossly reverses and contradicts itself and a facet of Government which very few Americans have any confidence in http://www.nappp.org/pdf/nickcumno.pdf
The courts had better take a look at what happened to the APA [and by extension, all the groups that cite them as "the final word on metal health"] in the 1970s & 1980s.
We forget that when people like Seawytch claim "I just debunked your Mayo Clinic and CDC data", they are relying on this institution and it's cherry-picked "studies" that "show differently". So is the new vogue where politics becomes "science" and "data"..
The APA and Psychology Need Reform
Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D.
Presented as part of the panel, Psychology Needs Reform
APA Presidents Debate the 10 Amendments.
Former Presidents Frank Farley, Bonnie Strickland, & Nicholas Cummings
APA Convention, New Orleans, August 12, 2006
...In 1973 under President Leona Tyler the Council of Representatives and the Board of Directors established the principle that when we speak as psychologists we speak from research evidence and clinical experience and expertise. Without that, every psychologist is free to speak their opinion as a citizen through a myriad of advocacy organizations, but when we spoke as psychologists the evidence had to be there. To violate this rule the APA would risk loss of credibility, making it just another ideological voice clamoring to be heard in a sea of opinions. Those of us who followed Leona Tyler as APA presidents zealously guarded our scientific and clinical integrity, and for years psychology continued to enjoy public respect. Soon, however, the Leona Tyler Principle, which was never repealed, was repeatedly ignored and even trampled. It was inevitable that we lost credibility as a science and profession speaking from evidence, and we now are regarded as an opinionated body that is in a huge disconnect with the American public.
Worse, we are the only scientific/professional society ever censured (and I might add
unanimously so) by the United States House of Representatives. Most APA members are unaware of the event, and those who know seem to blame Dr. Laura Schlesinger who seized upon the publication by an APA journal of a meta-analysis and interview study of college students who had been sexually molested as children. The publication challenged the notion that these experiences had been deleterious, setting off a firestorm that culminated in the APA being summoned by a Congressional committee to explain its views on the effects of pedophilia. The public and the Congress are strongly in favor of academic freedom, but not at the risk of harm to their children. Apparently not realizing this, or dismissing it as unimportant, the APA testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives focused on academic freedom, thus relegating pedophilia to a subordinate role. So bad was the disconnect between psychologys leadership and American society that it was shocked when the censure motion passed unanimously, with even the two psychologist members of the House of Representatives abstaining rather than voting against it. http://www.nappp.org/pdf/nickcumno.pdf
So, in short, the US House of Representatives actually censured the APA for its stance that "pedophilia might be OK under the right circumstances". This is the end product of a gay cabal having taken over the APA in the 1980s and handpicking board members who are "on board" with "the new agenda". The Leona Tyler Principle was simply disappeared without an up or down vote by the stacked board. Presumably because of the remaining people who believed in ethics and science, there might be an uncomfortable outcry. Best to just make it go away instead.
So at least one branch of government has denounced the APA as as viable institution to cite in any studies regarding the welfare of children. So I always chuckle to myself whenever Seawytch or one of her cohorts cites the APA or a group that is citing the APA as "having debunked" outfits like the Mayo Clinic or the CDC...
So bad was the disconnect between psychologys leadership and American society that it was shocked when the censure motion passed unanimously, with even the two psychologist members of the House of Representatives abstaining rather than voting against it
SAN FRANCISCO, December 21, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com—The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a California law that would prevent psychologists from helping people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction.
The appeals court, based in San Francisco, issued the injunction against the ban on reparative therapy on Friday, pending the appeal of Pickup v. Brown...
...The minors we represent…have struggled with same-sex attraction and have been able to reduce or eliminate the stress and conflict in their lives ...
...“Without this emergency injunction, the State of California would essentially barge into the private therapy rooms of victimized young people and tell them that their confusion – caused by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky abuser – is normal and they should pursue their unwanted same-sex sexual attractions and behavior,” Staver said.
Staver argues this is an infringement of the teens’ rights – and those of their parents LifeSiteNews Mobile | Appeals court blocks California?s reparative therapy ban
As to the issue of possible harm, the task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: "There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom," according to the report.
"Without such information, psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments and need to be very cautious, given that some qualitative research suggests the potential for harm," Glassgold said. "Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome."
As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."
"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality." Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA
Silhouette - do you notice how all the Gays and Liberals have backed off now that you've thoroughly beat them over the head with reality - not a single one can offer any logical rebuttal - they're all hiding !!!
Come out come out where ever you are . [And I don't mean out of the closet - get back in there]
This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a traditional swing vote, wrote for the court. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Courts precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.
Read more: Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
That's a head's up for how the LGBT vs Utah case is possible to go. I think the Court would call that "foreshadowing"..The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the States broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the [p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities. Ibid. [T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce. United States v. Windsor
Silhouette - do you notice how all the Gays and Liberals have backed off now that you've thoroughly beat them over the head with reality - not a single one can offer any logical rebuttal - they're all hiding !!!
Come out come out where ever you are . [And I don't mean out of the closet - get back in there]
I imagine they're licking their wounds right about now...
Two SCOTUS cases, one verdict: States get their sovereignty:
Kennedy [today]:
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a traditional swing vote, wrote for the court. “There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court’s precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”
Read more: Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Windsor [last Summer], Page 17:
That's a head's up for how the LGBT vs Utah case is possible to go. I think the Court would call that "foreshadowing"..The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) Lawyers for two Oklahoma women and the county clerk who would not give them a marriage license go before a federal appeals court with a familiar question for the judges: Did the states voters single out gay people for unfair treatment when they defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard similar issues in a Utah case last week, giving Oklahoma lawyers a preview of what questions they might face.
Essentially, (the cases) are not that different, said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione, who is representing Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith. Both of them involve challenges to state marriage amendments that were passed by an overwhelming majority of the people...
..U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who asked whether Utahs same-sex marriage ban was similar to Virginias former ban on interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ban 47 years ago.
Holmes also said, however, that gay marriages are a new concept for courts to address and that perhaps it is best to defer to the democratic process unless there is a compelling reason to step in.
...The Utah and Oklahoma cases are very similar: both involve bans on same-sex marriage passed by a majority of voters in 2004 - 76 percent in Oklahoma and 66 percent in Utah - and both bans were struck down by federal judges within a month of one another in December and January. The legal arguments for and against the ban are also similar.
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before U.S. appeals court - Washington Times
Silhouette - do you notice how all the Gays and Liberals have backed off now that you've thoroughly beat them over the head with reality - not a single one can offer any logical rebuttal - they're all hiding !!!
Come out come out where ever you are . [And I don't mean out of the closet - get back in there]
