110 responses

  1. Erin
    January 11, 2012

    Thanks Priya. I spotted some in earlier posts. Some were so bad, I think certain sentences wouldn’t make sense to anyone but me.

    • Timothy Kincaid
      January 12, 2012

      Erin

      I have no trouble understanding you at all.

  2. Priya Lynn
    January 12, 2012

    Ditto, I think you’re a fine writer, Erin.

  3. Ben in Oakland
    January 12, 2012

    So, Jeremiah thinks that the antigay groups are every bit as objective and scientific as the gay groups and scientific groups.

    and yet…and yet…

    We have NUMEROUS examples of them distorting and falsifying data and research. I myself have caught him doing it twice, one time of which he ‘apologized” for. In this very blog posting, he tried to do it again , and was caught in a deliberate and clumsy lie.

    So, what’s the story, J? You deny being a paid propagandist for the Religous Reich. You deny being an unpaid one. Yet clear as clear can be, you arE willing to lie, distort, and obfuscate in support of an obvious agenda.

    Are you willing to tell us what your motivation is? Money? Fear. religion? Crazy?

    I’m going to go with an otherwise intelligent soul buried within the darkness of you r hear. If I were like you, I probably Couldn’t live with myself.

    It’s betting that you can. It is the nature of darkness.

  4. JeremiahA
    January 14, 2012

    Erin, I wrote, “I am sorry but I will have to disagree with you on the level of objectivit­y of certain profession­al organizati­ons.” Then you wrote here, “He said the national scientific groups such as the APA are as objective as the anti-gay groups.” Where did I ever mention anti-gay groups?

    I wrote, “…I am not completely against cohabiting couples, heterosexu­al or homosexual­, or single people adopting.” Yet here you imply that I wish to ban single-gender couples from adopting.

    Why is it necessary to misrepresent another person’s view, i.e., engage in the ignoble method of strawman arguments? Even Ben in Oakland got into the act.

    He wrote here,”These children in the study you (JeremiahA) claim proves that gay people do not make good parents were in fact opposite sex marriages.” However, in my first post on this topic I wrote, “Is this study (Sarantakos) valid? If so, it corroborates Dr. Fitzgibbons’ point. If not, then it needs to be retracted along with the Sirota study.” Where did I claim that the Sirota study proves that gay people do not make good parents? I wrote the exact opposite. I wrote that the study should be retracted. Why? Because the Sirota study on gay and bisexual husbands did not support Dr. Fitzgibbons’ claim.

    So I think concluding our discussion here would be best, especially since we reached an impasse on a rudimentary truism that one’s sex is pertinent to child rearing. If such an intuitively true (“intuition” in the philosophical usage), self-evident statement, unnecessarily backed by studies, could so easily be rejected, then it would be a misuse of our time to continue.

    However, I do want to thank you for your generally even-keeled tone and from refraining to engage in the belligerent, hostile rhetoric prevalent here.

    (And I do have to admit that Ben in Oakland’s conspiracy theories are fun to read. Here’s one he would probably enjoy…Ben is actually an anti-gay activist hired by co-conspirators (NOM, Christians, Muslims, Jews, NARTH, 7 million Prop. 8 California voters, AFTAH, the Boy Scouts, Domino’s Pizza, Cinemark Theaters, and the Salvation Army) to pretend to be a bellicose pro-gay advocate in order to make gay-friendly advocates look bad.)

  5. Erin
    January 14, 2012

    C’mon, Jeremiah, this whole debate is about an article where the author misrepresented research to make a point about not letting gay couples adopt. You showed up on both sites to defend the author and bring attention to another study to support him (which is doesn’t really conclusively support either side. What are you doing here arguing with us about it, in defense of Fitzgibbons, if you’re not trying to back up his claim that gays shouldn’t adopt? I said the National scientific groups like the APA are more objective, you disagreed. I don’t remember your exact words, but I do recall reading something to the tune of “we could say that both groups lack objectivity.” Again, I am saying, that is crap. A group that makes money off of repairative therapy will never be anywhere near as objective as the APA. The APA is huge and pushes peer reviews of studies. NARTH is interested in demeaning homosexual relationships, and bending whatever data they find to their agenda. And you are not *completely* against same sex couples adopting? What does that even mean? All in all, I’ve misrepresented nothing. Since this back and forth keeps going on, I admit the last few responses I’ve gotten from you were quickly skimmed, but I’m addressing what you wrote now, so consider me not misrepresenting you, ok? Again, what does it mean that you’re not “completely against it,” and why would you keep arguing about which side has worthwhile studies backing them up and defending this Fitzgibbons guy if there weren’t some level of agreement with his over all conclusion? And I don’t blame Ben for getting snippy. He remembers dealing with you before. I don’t. Maybe he found your earlier arguments irrational. I’ve been arguing with people over this gay thing for what seems like forever, and I can tell you, I’ve picked it all apart, and it’s all crap. Just because you’re trying to use better language in your argument does not mean it can’t also be unraveled to reveal simple anti-gay animus. I stand by my points. I had the same upbringing as my two straight siblings. My functionality as an adult, my life skills, my ability to adapt, my morals, values, and ethics are not negatively affected by the fact that I have fallen in love with someone of my own sex and I have made the healthy choice to accept who I am instead of hide in a closet. It didn’t take away my desire for my dream wedding or being a mom, and I’m going to be a damn good mom. I’m sick of these ridiculous, meaningless arguments that I don’t create a special bond with my partner that is ideal for a child to be brought up around. I’m tired of every other simple-minded argument made in every other question of legal equality for same sex couples. It all boils down to something being inherently damaging and wrong about me and my relationship. That is baseless and offensive. So, again, you can accuse me of misrepresenting you, all you’d like. You’re not going to distract me or anyone else from the argument or successfully point to me as having an immoral argument. I’ve addressed your points, now that you’ve corrected me as to what exactly it was you wrote, but I still don’t see you as over all arguing for a different conclusion than I’ve attributed to you.

  6. Richard Rush
    January 14, 2012

    While reading through Jeremiah’s comments, I’ve been struck by a wild and crazy thought: Could Jeremiah actually be Dr. Michael Brown? There is just something about the writing style. Maybe it’s the relentless feigning of civility.

  7. Erin
    January 14, 2012

    I don’t know what his dog is in this fight. I sense he’s back-peddling though. This argument wouldn’t keep going if he wasn’t trying to back up the anti-gay adoption stance. I know it’s getting old. There really aren’t two equally valid sides to this issue, and I’m tired of the attempts to cover up the animus with these moderate-sounding arguments.

  8. Load More Comments…

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop