This is a response to what I think is an eminent example of a sustained but highly incompetent homosexualist attack. This particular specimen has been trolling the forum, to bait everyone he could in an online discussion which developed in response to an article titled Should Australia have a referendum on same-sex marriage? This on an excellent website maintained by a group of people who openly identify as holding Christian values and traditional views on important contemporary issues like same sex marriage and abortion: Mercatornet.com.
What follows here is a direct response to a series of postings by the homosexualist labeling s/himself 'Jimmy Jones', in which s/he provides some links to articles published by researchers who openly support homosexualism as 'evidence' to back s/his claim that children do just as well when raised by same sex couple as when raised by heterosexual married people. This as a component of a wider argument on the efficacy of same sex 'marriage'. I critiqued s/his 'evidence', which prompted a turgid and barely comprehensible attack in return. The sad part is that s/he is so incompetent in doing this that I actually feel pity for s/him.
*Aside: This is a draft. I would like to develop this into a more cogent posting here, so I will return and work on it later. But for now, the posting will serve as a response to Jimmy Jones' latest critique.
My response
I'm happy to ignore the childish attempts at discrediting my work, the evidence for both sides is now on Mercatornet for everyone else to see and formulate their own opinions. I am happy to let others determine who talks 'rumbling nonsense' (which this homosexualist has accused me of doing).
For this homosexualist's benefit, and perhaps to offer some assistance in teaching him how to successfully argue a point, I'll say the following things. Make of them what you will.
First, make sure that your information is correct before you rush to provide it in support of your argument.
Second, make sure you understand the meaning of what you say. For instance, it isn't the universities and organisations you have cited that have published those articles you referred to - it is the individuals who authored them. They simply work for those universities and organisations. It is also hypocritical, because when you criticisise those who have published the (much better) scholarship that easily disprove your claims, you attack them as individuals (more like vilify them), rather than their universities. For instance, I don't see you refer to Mark Regnerus' study as a "University or Texas study".
Third, don't lie. It is such a terrible thing to do to yourself Though the eggs may be good for your complexion, they also make you look ridiculous. For instance, I provided an extract from one of the comments on the study you quoted - it is only one of the ten responses on this webpage. The reply by Siegel you want me to cite instead is one among them. Yet even so, you're doing what you accuse me of. For example, why did you pick and edit from the quote by Siegel? Didn't he also says:"The authors recognize the limitations of their study: a non random study and the lack of
self report by the subjects or by teacher report in this specific analysis. In addition, the study group is compared to the historical normative comparison group with a much higher geographic diversity and a higher sampling of minorities". Furthermore, five of the ten comments pointed out significant flaws in the study. Of the other five responses, one was by the authors themselves, one from a well known homosexualist (J.Stacey), and the others, while supportive in the main, still acknowledged flaws (like in the example I gave above). Siegel himself is, of course the author of the AAP's 'policy' on homosexuality. Double barreled your footsies off again, eh?
Fourth, you should be honest in your response. If you must attack me, personally, know that I don't mind - actually I expect that from people like you, you're so true to type it's uncanny. My hunch is that it's a syndrome homosexualists seem to suffer from. regardless, the point is that at least you should also strive to respond to and address the actual information I gave, just so that you at least gain some credibility. You haven't done that. For example, which of the points in my critique are erroneous? Did you refute any of them? Did you even read the article itself, or do you have sufficient training to understand how to examine a research report for its conceptual and methodological merits?
Fifth, don't misrepresent what your opponents say. It really stands out. For example, where, pray tell, did I say "more parents from a poorer soci-economic [sic] background should have been considered"? Where did I say "that economically poorer people make poorer parents". What I said instead is that the sample was not representative - big difference.
Sixth, you really don't have a clue on how researchers work, so you would be wise to not make out that you do. Of course there are agendas and political aims, and that's what some of us are trying to expose and weed out. I just did so with one of the studies you cited. And I am not deluded, I specifically said "if you don't believe me ...[read this]' because I knew that was something someone like you would accuse me of. Of course academics and researchers skew data and are selective in their representation of findings. Some because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but others because they are just very, very bad scholars. History is replete with examples of this. You would perhaps not know this, but Hitler's nazis used anthropological 'evidence' to demonstrate the inferiority of the Jewish people, and others like the Romani.
Seventh, don't declare truisms. At least not so triumphantly, its really not very dignified to make yourself appear so obviously ignorant. The website I linked to (where I posted my original analysis of the NLLF study for the benefit of another homosexualist). is where I spent quite a bit of time dealing with the homosexualists who infested that worthwhile publications. As a matter of fact, I think that I was quite successful, since the publication has ceased publishing homosexualist propaganda now for months. (More on that later, if you like - or you can browse the rest of this site). I don't run form a fight. Of course I comment wherever I can against homosexualism, I make no excuse for it, and I am proud to fight this horrible ideology which aims to destroy civilised society. Here is an invitation you ought to not be able to resist: list three websites where I have made arguments (to the extent I have done on Mercatornet) that were defeated after which I "just up-shops and move[d] on to another site to start all over again".
Lastly, I believe TvL and others on the Mercator forum, not least because of their demeanor and respect they display, even for their opponents. And of course because they have provided ample evidence to back up their stance in other posts and threads - they don't need to repeat themselves over, and over for my benefit. I think of myself as having just enough sense not to make myself look like an idiot by demanding they 'prove' they are not 'liars', as these ignorant freaks keep doing. TvL and others are either Christians, or at least respectful of other people's beliefs. And that is a mark of civilised community, in which trust and truth are paramount. The homosexualists are, on the whole, part of a mob which inhabits a reality which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish" (I am sure you can google it to see what this means). They like nothing better than to impose that reality on the rest of the world.
*Aside: This is a draft. I would like to develop this into a more cogent posting here, so I will return and work on it later. But for now, the posting will serve as a response to Jimmy Jones' latest critique.
My response
I'm happy to ignore the childish attempts at discrediting my work, the evidence for both sides is now on Mercatornet for everyone else to see and formulate their own opinions. I am happy to let others determine who talks 'rumbling nonsense' (which this homosexualist has accused me of doing).
For this homosexualist's benefit, and perhaps to offer some assistance in teaching him how to successfully argue a point, I'll say the following things. Make of them what you will.
First, make sure that your information is correct before you rush to provide it in support of your argument.
Second, make sure you understand the meaning of what you say. For instance, it isn't the universities and organisations you have cited that have published those articles you referred to - it is the individuals who authored them. They simply work for those universities and organisations. It is also hypocritical, because when you criticisise those who have published the (much better) scholarship that easily disprove your claims, you attack them as individuals (more like vilify them), rather than their universities. For instance, I don't see you refer to Mark Regnerus' study as a "University or Texas study".
Third, don't lie. It is such a terrible thing to do to yourself Though the eggs may be good for your complexion, they also make you look ridiculous. For instance, I provided an extract from one of the comments on the study you quoted - it is only one of the ten responses on this webpage. The reply by Siegel you want me to cite instead is one among them. Yet even so, you're doing what you accuse me of. For example, why did you pick and edit from the quote by Siegel? Didn't he also says:"The authors recognize the limitations of their study: a non random study and the lack of
self report by the subjects or by teacher report in this specific analysis. In addition, the study group is compared to the historical normative comparison group with a much higher geographic diversity and a higher sampling of minorities". Furthermore, five of the ten comments pointed out significant flaws in the study. Of the other five responses, one was by the authors themselves, one from a well known homosexualist (J.Stacey), and the others, while supportive in the main, still acknowledged flaws (like in the example I gave above). Siegel himself is, of course the author of the AAP's 'policy' on homosexuality. Double barreled your footsies off again, eh?
Fourth, you should be honest in your response. If you must attack me, personally, know that I don't mind - actually I expect that from people like you, you're so true to type it's uncanny. My hunch is that it's a syndrome homosexualists seem to suffer from. regardless, the point is that at least you should also strive to respond to and address the actual information I gave, just so that you at least gain some credibility. You haven't done that. For example, which of the points in my critique are erroneous? Did you refute any of them? Did you even read the article itself, or do you have sufficient training to understand how to examine a research report for its conceptual and methodological merits?
Fifth, don't misrepresent what your opponents say. It really stands out. For example, where, pray tell, did I say "more parents from a poorer soci-economic [sic] background should have been considered"? Where did I say "that economically poorer people make poorer parents". What I said instead is that the sample was not representative - big difference.
Sixth, you really don't have a clue on how researchers work, so you would be wise to not make out that you do. Of course there are agendas and political aims, and that's what some of us are trying to expose and weed out. I just did so with one of the studies you cited. And I am not deluded, I specifically said "if you don't believe me ...[read this]' because I knew that was something someone like you would accuse me of. Of course academics and researchers skew data and are selective in their representation of findings. Some because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but others because they are just very, very bad scholars. History is replete with examples of this. You would perhaps not know this, but Hitler's nazis used anthropological 'evidence' to demonstrate the inferiority of the Jewish people, and others like the Romani.
Seventh, don't declare truisms. At least not so triumphantly, its really not very dignified to make yourself appear so obviously ignorant. The website I linked to (where I posted my original analysis of the NLLF study for the benefit of another homosexualist). is where I spent quite a bit of time dealing with the homosexualists who infested that worthwhile publications. As a matter of fact, I think that I was quite successful, since the publication has ceased publishing homosexualist propaganda now for months. (More on that later, if you like - or you can browse the rest of this site). I don't run form a fight. Of course I comment wherever I can against homosexualism, I make no excuse for it, and I am proud to fight this horrible ideology which aims to destroy civilised society. Here is an invitation you ought to not be able to resist: list three websites where I have made arguments (to the extent I have done on Mercatornet) that were defeated after which I "just up-shops and move[d] on to another site to start all over again".
Lastly, I believe TvL and others on the Mercator forum, not least because of their demeanor and respect they display, even for their opponents. And of course because they have provided ample evidence to back up their stance in other posts and threads - they don't need to repeat themselves over, and over for my benefit. I think of myself as having just enough sense not to make myself look like an idiot by demanding they 'prove' they are not 'liars', as these ignorant freaks keep doing. TvL and others are either Christians, or at least respectful of other people's beliefs. And that is a mark of civilised community, in which trust and truth are paramount. The homosexualists are, on the whole, part of a mob which inhabits a reality which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish" (I am sure you can google it to see what this means). They like nothing better than to impose that reality on the rest of the world.