The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Inter-faith alliance against gay marriage?

... does the Pope think he's playing Risk?

Hey, now, every minute that the Catholic Church spends opposing gay marriage is a minute they aren't diddling ten-year-olds/hiding the fact that somebody else is diddling ten-year-olds. Really, their ranting is saving young boys of the world from being molested. Consider the time they spend on this a pubic . . . er, public service.

I think you need to change your avatar for statements like that.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hey, now, every minute that the Catholic Church spends opposing gay marriage is a minute they aren't diddling ten-year-olds/hiding the fact that somebody else is diddling ten-year-olds. Really, their ranting is saving young boys of the world from being molested. Consider the time they spend on this a pubic . . . er, public service.

Sadly, I think you underestimate their ability to multitask.

NathanialG wrote:

I think you need to change your avatar for statements like that.

I'm not sure I could set that kind of precedent... I'd be changing my avatar to reflect my mood way too often.

I'm curious, what's the study by that Rabbi that they mentioned that gay marriage is destroying families?

EDIT: Had something about how harmless this should hopefully be, but I may be wrong and it comes off badly. Never mind.

So, they've been killing each other for thousands of years, some of them are still trying to kill each other, but they can shake hands over how horrible gay people are.

f*cking nuts.

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to officially end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos (they were considering it a few weeks back).

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos.

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

I have like five quotes to pick apart here from that story that are just too stupid for words, but I'm going to use words none the less. But, I gotta get started on what is likely to be a LONG drive home due to snowy stuff.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Congratulations to the bigots at Discover Annapolis Tours who decided to officially end all trolley service for weddings instead of having to offer their services to those filthy homos (they were considering it a few weeks back).

I wonder if the brain trust at DAT understands that under Maryland law, they cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians for any of their services.

I am looking forward to their crocodile tears in the near future when they close down the whole business in spite (while claiming it is just because they love Jesus so much) rather than provide services to all of the public, include those godless sodomites (no word on if they would refuse service to atheist heterosexuals who engage in anal sex).

So, three cheers for DAT!

Congratulations! Embrace your bigotry!

It's what some skewed vision of Jesus wants you to do!

Look at the way that guy grips that pole. That's a conservative Western grip, not some fancy Continental Overhand grip. That's how a real man runs his hand up and down a slippery pole.

Why is there a stripper pole on the trolley?

Be nice if someone with library access could enlighten us on the study proper. I get scared when media starts talking about studies. Doubly on conclusions, that is where we get fun stuff like this, or videogames lead to violence sorts of stuff. I even heard of one study that says men came from apes, and my grandfather was a chimp.

You can file this next story under "Another Clown Looking for an Additional 15 Minutes of Fame."

Mark Regnerus is an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Texas-Austin. This past summer, he published a study saying that children of gays and lesbian parents were worse off than if those children had married heterosexual parents. Within days, Regnerus' study had been mocked, ridiculed and scrutinized to the point where Regnerus had to walk back some of his statements. The problem with the study included:

1. The study didn't actually compare married gay couples and married straight couples.
2. At no time does the study establish a causation between gay parenting and negative outcomes for the children of those couples.
3. The study doesn't do anything to prevent using data from overlapping subpopulations.
4. The study never actually defines the words "gay" and "lesbian."
5. The study was funded by a conservative anti-gay group and Regnerus opposes same-sex marriage.

After his pasting by just about everyone for his shoddy research and ridiculous claims, Regnerus went back to his UT office, not to be heard from until a few days ago when he released a piece called "Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage." His thesis: men under 40 who watch a lot of porn or more likely to support marriage equality. He sub-thesis: This is because watching graphic, sexual material softens you up into supporting something deviant like gay marriage.

I kid you not:

There is a correlation between watching porn and support for gay marriage among men, Dr. Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at University of Texas at Austin, found. Exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts, he believes, may undermine a traditional view of marriage. Using data from The New Family Structures Study, a project for which he was the principal investigator, Regnerus found statistically significant positive correlation between porn use and support for same-sex marriage among men, even after controlling for other predictors, such as political party, religiosity, marital status, age, education and sexual orientation. In the full sample, 42 percent of men and 47 percent of women agreed or strongly agreed that gay marriage should be legal. Among men who view porn daily or almost daily, though, 54 percent strongly agreed (not just agreed) that gay marriage should be legal while only 13 percent who said they viewed porn monthly or less believed the same, Regnerus wrote for The Witherspoon Institute's "Public Discourse."

Regnerus states:

Moreover, the web’s most popular pornographic sites do little to discriminate one sex act—or category of such—from another. Gazers are treated to a veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity. (These are not your grandfather’s Playboy.) So, add to the sharing of bodies temporarily and nonexclusively a significant dose of alternative forms of sexual activity—positions, roles, genders, and numbers—and that’s basically where porn presses its consumers today: away from sex as having anything approaching a “marital meaning” or structure of the sort outlined in the article cited above.

Which leads him to this conclusion:

In the end, contrary to what we might wish to think, young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and a noble commitment to fairness. It may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts.

This isn't even worth refuting.

How in the hell does an associate professor at a very large university forget the most basic of principles in statistic: correlation does not imply causation? (Even though Regnerus says he understands that, it begs the question of why suggest correlation may imply causation?)

Within weeks, I bet Regnerus will be backtracking on his latest research and, like his other vile study, will get a pass from the University of Texas.

(Note: this was updated to clarify that Regnerus was not publishing a study, but a piece for the Witherspoon Institute about his views on some data correlations.)

-----------------------------

Maybe Regnerus can do a research study on this garbage:

An American church is promising gay men they will be cured of their homosexuality if they stroke horses.

"Pastor" Bell is a sociopath and should ever be allowed to interact with minors ever again.

I have updated my post on Regnerus. I understood this to be another research study, but it turns out it was a series of conclusions by Regnerus (from other data) that was put up in a piece on the Witherspoon Institute website. His article appears here.

Well we have two things here.

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

The porn and attitudes of acceptance of homosexuals among men watching more porn is another matter entirely. That reads, more or less innocuous, unless you already have a bent that the US is going down the toilet into Sodom and Gomorrah. The Witherspoon Inst. seems to be in the pillar of salt camp. I would say men who watch a larger volume of and more diverse subject matter of porn would be likely to have more liberal attitudes regarding sexuality than men who do not. That seems a harmless correlation to find. And it is quaint to see these groups taking 30 year old chatting points out of the cupboard. I am waiting for the study to start blaming witchcraft and bad humors. Maybe all you and Rubb Ed need is a good bloodletting to rid the devil of you.

KingGorilla wrote:

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

Yes, it quickly became a pay-for-view study, but I am trying to locate a colleague with a copy.

Although this is not an unbiased source, here is someone who took a lot of time to read the study and pick apart some of the problems.

One of the main problems with Regnerus' study, like most studies that talk about children raised by gay vs. straight parents is that the studies inevitably try to equate married heterosexual couples who have biological offspring with unmarried homosexual couples who have children from another marriage or relationship. You simply cannot equate the two. Likewise, you can't even begin to equate a married heterosexual couple with a gay couple that is unmarried, in a domestic partnership or a civil union. Marriage is a distinct and separate state of a relationship, and although I don't want to give the impression that marriage is a magic wand of some sort, there is a distinct change in the dynamic of a relationship when the couple becomes married.

In any event, if I find a copy, I will post a link here or send it to you.

The porn and attitudes of acceptance of homosexuals among men watching more porn is another matter entirely. That reads, more or less innocuous, unless you already have a bent that the US is going down the toilet into Sodom and Gomorrah. The Witherspoon Inst. seems to be in the pillar of salt camp. I would say men who watch a larger volume of and more diverse subject matter of porn would be likely to have more liberal attitudes regarding sexuality than men who do not. That seems a harmless correlation to find. And it is quaint to see these groups taking 30 year old chatting points out of the cupboard. I am waiting for the study to start blaming witchcraft and bad humors. Maybe all you and Rubb Ed need is a good bloodletting to rid the devil of you.

Innocuous, perhaps, but in a charged atmosphere, correlations like the one Regnerus latches onto is fodder for the right wing Christian set that is getting more and more desperate as gay marriage is gaining acceptance at record pace. One can easily see how this can be spun to get a twofer where no only do they get to condemn the deviancy of gay marriage, they get to clutch their pearls and talk about how the perverts who watch "Debbie Does Dallas" can't wait to support other "perverts."

As for the bloodletting, the exorcism didn't work, so I don't think that would either.

that trolley guy wrote:

Grubbs' message went on to suggest Maryland residents contact their lawmakers to "request they amend the new marriage law to allow an exemption for religious conviction for the layperson in the pew. The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don't have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don't count for anything."

This brings up an interesting thought. If Grubbs shut down his business, opened a church, and provided the trolley as a service of the church, would he be able to skirt the laws?

If he were an arm of a religious institution, sure. The Knights of Columbus is a private religious fraternal organization. They are like the Masons or Shriners, with more trinity.

My major qualm is that these organizations get direct funding and tax subsidies from state, local, and federal entities while being agents of hate.

Where this twit sees an unfair loophole that he should be able to exploit, I see state sponsored hate.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

His study of “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” is more or less locked to me. And this is the one I wish we could get into.

Yes, it quickly became a pay-for-view study, but I am trying to locate a colleague with a copy.

Although this is not an unbiased source, here is someone who took a lot of time to read the study and pick apart some of the problems....

...In any event, if I find a copy, I will post a link here or send it to you.


Found it.

[size=10]*wanders away, muttering about pseudoscience*[/size]

Elysia wrote:


Found it.

[size=10]*wanders away, muttering about pseudoscience*[/size]

IMAGE(http://cdn.styleforum.net/9/92/305x204px-LL-92710d34_its-a-christmas-miracle-thumb.jpeg)

Seth wrote:
that trolley guy wrote:

Grubbs' message went on to suggest Maryland residents contact their lawmakers to "request they amend the new marriage law to allow an exemption for religious conviction for the layperson in the pew. The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don't have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don't count for anything."

This brings up an interesting thought. If Grubbs shut down his business, opened a church, and provided the trolley as a service of the church, would he be able to skirt the laws?

KingGorilla wrote:

If he were an arm of a religious institution, sure. The Knights of Columbus is a private religious fraternal organization. They are like the Masons or Shriners, with more trinity.

My major qualm is that these organizations get direct funding and tax subsidies from state, local, and federal entities while being agents of hate.

Where this twit sees an unfair loophole that he should be able to exploit, I see state sponsored hate.

I am not sure that making the trolley business an arm of the church would automatically give Grubbs the right to skirt the law. For instance, he could not open a hotel via the church and then claim that only Christians could stay in the hotel. The SCOTUS has said many times that churches that offer any type of public accommodation (i.e. general business services) are subject to the same business regulations as any other business. This is why the churches here in Maricopa County are subject to having their kitchens inspected by the county health inspector and the religious store that many churches have are subject to sales tax, etc.

If the church offered this to people married in the church, I think they could skirt around that. In the same way a church may offer their banquet hall for wedding receptions only to people wed in that church.

KingGorilla wrote:

If the church offered this to people married in the church, I think they could skirt around that. In the same way a church may offer their banquet hall for wedding receptions only to people wed in that church.

Agreed, but that would be interesting to see how willing Grubbs would be to allowing non-adherents to his church's teachings to be married in his church (assuming, of course, he had that say).

Back before my dad retired (he was a minister), I was with him when somebody just came in off the street and asked if the church was available for weddings. He replied that they were a church and not a wedding chapel, and he would love it if they would join the family of the church and be welcomed there prior to their wedding, as only members or their families were married at that church. So, in other words, the whole "only marry members of your church" thing? That's how it currently goes in many places. This guy's just being his usual dickish self and making up more asinine scare stories.

It wouldn't mind if a church I was considering allowed gay marriage, but if free beer was served before passing the collection plate, you could probably count me in every Sunday.

I think I speak for most of America.

Paleocon wrote:

It wouldn't mind if a church I was considering allowed gay marriage, but if free beer was served before passing the collection plate, you could probably count me in every Sunday.

I think I speak for most of America.

I think I will move to Colorado and start a Church of Weed.

I'll Nth the Milkman's post. At our church, not only do you have to be a member, you and your spouse have to attend a series of marriage counseling sessions with some trained counselors as part of the package before they'll allow you to be married there.

momgamer wrote:

I'll Nth the Milkman's post. At our church, not only do you have to be a member, you and your spouse have to attend a series of marriage counseling sessions with some trained counselors as part of the package before they'll allow you to be married there.

It was precisely this sort of crap that resulted in our odd decision to get married in a practically all-white Presbyterian church despite our having no connection to it. I was raised Papist (I know it is a pejorative) while she was raised Baptist (its own pejorative). Nether would let us marry in the church without similar restrictions, so we told them to politely fornicate with themselves.

Paleocon wrote:
momgamer wrote:

I'll Nth the Milkman's post. At our church, not only do you have to be a member, you and your spouse have to attend a series of marriage counseling sessions with some trained counselors as part of the package before they'll allow you to be married there.

It was precisely this sort of crap that resulted in our odd decision to get married in a practically all-white Presbyterian church despite our having no connection to it. I was raised Papist (I know it is a pejorative) while she was raised Baptist (its own pejorative). Nether would let us marry in the church without similar restrictions, so we told them to politely fornicate with themselves.

And our Pastor would think that was a perfectly awesome choice. He loves to marry people, but he is also thinking of the rest of the life. If you don't want that sort of input, he's a bad choice.

And it's not limiting. I don't think my elder daughter is going to have her ceremony there (her fiance wants a Magic the Gathering tournament as part of the reception and it really doesn't have good facilities for that, for one thing), and I know my elder son and his fiance are going to elope and just have a big party when they get home.

Jayhawker wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It wouldn't mind if a church I was considering allowed gay marriage, but if free beer was served before passing the collection plate, you could probably count me in every Sunday.

I think I speak for most of America.

I think I will move to Colorado and start a Church of Weed.

You have my sword.