As I wrote over a week ago, I no longer read, nor do I respond to any missive or thread that our purported group ̶N̶e̶w̶s̶ ̶M̶a̶n̶ Asshole initiates. I will take this opportunity to point out however, that the 1,342 alleged legal rights and benefits that Mr.̶N̶e̶w̶s̶ ̶M̶a̶n̶ Asshole references are feigned, supposititious, deceptive, spurious, and just downright bogus, yet we have taken the time here in the Group on several occasions to establish as much and prove that the 1,342 claim has no merit. Still Mr. ̶N̶e̶w̶s̶ ̶M̶a̶n̶ Asshole continues with the charade.
Could he actually believe the bogus claim, or is there another alternative mission here? Could it be that Mr. ̶N̶e̶w̶s̶ ̶M̶a̶n̶ Asshole's real goal is propaganda, disinformation, and indoctrination? On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > That is an out and out lie.... > > For starters Tommytomtom... you could marry any woman you chose (if she > was in agreement) just the exact same as I can... I am also not allowed to > marry a same sex person... > > After this all the rest of your claims are bullshit. > > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> This demonstrates Why Republicans are Misguided Homophobes. >> >> Same Sex Couples do not have 1,342 legal rights and benefits afforded >> by civil marriage contracts. >> >> >> On May 3, 4:22 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Heteros and gays have at this time the very same legal options. No >> > matter how you look at it "marriage" is now a legality. >> > >> > Please name ONE, just ONE, legal option that I have that gays don't. >> > >> > Do NOT list emotions. I said LEGAL OPTIONS. >> > >> > On May 3, 12:32 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Why Republicans Believe Anti-Gay Pseudoscience >> > > BY CHRIS MOONEY >> > >> > > On May 8, North Carolinians will vote on a constitutional amendment >> > > that defines a marriage between a man and a woman as the “only >> > > domestic legal union” the state will recognize -- thereby barring LGBT >> > > marriage equality. The amendment would also ban civil unions, and end >> > > domestic partner benefits, like prescription drug and health care >> > > coverage, for the partners and children of public employees. At its >> > > deepest level, this issue is about fairness for everyone under the >> > > law. But less mentioned is that it is also about science, and what’s >> > > factually true. >> > >> > > Many voters who go to the polls to support Amendment One will do so >> > > believing outright falsehoods about same-sex marriages and civil >> > > unions. In particular, they hold the belief that such partnerships are >> > > damaging to the health and well-being of the children raised in them. >> > > That is, after all, one of the chief justifications for the amendment. >> > >> > > According to the pro-Amendment One Vote for Marriage NC, for instance, >> > > “the overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that >> > > children do best when raised by their married mother and father.” If >> > > marriage is defined as anything other than the union between >> > >> > > man and woman, the group adds, we will see “a higher incidence of all >> > > the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a >> > > home without their married biological parents.” >> > >> > > “Overwhelming body of social science evidence”? “Documented social >> > > ills”? Is this really true? Are same sex marriages and civil unions >> > > bad for kids? >> > >> > > Well, no. Indeed, as I report in my new book The Republican Brain: The >> > > Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality, the claim that the kids >> > > won’t be all right in same sex marriages or partnerships now rates up >> > > there with a number of other hoary old falsehoods about homosexuality: >> > > the assertion that people can “choose” whether to be gay; the notion >> > > that homosexuality is a type of disorder; and the wrong idea that it >> > > can be cured through “reparative” therapy. All of these claims are >> > > explicitly disavowed by the American Psychological Association (APA). >> > >> > > In a moment, I want to explore the underlying psychology behind how >> > > conservatives, especially religious ones, can believe such falsehoods. >> > > But first, let’s dismantle, on a substantive level, the idea that >> > > research shows that kids fare worse when raised by two parents who are >> > > of the same gender. >> > >> > > According to the APA, the relevant science shows nothing of the kind. >> > > “Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents…have no >> > > empirical foundation,” concludes a recent publication from the >> > > organization. To the contrary, the association states, the >> > > “development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and >> > > gay parents do not differ markedly >> > >> > > from that of children with heterosexual parents.” >> > >> > > So how can Christian conservatives possibly claim otherwise? >> > >> > > CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP... >> > >> > > Well, one favored approach is literally citing the wrong studies. >> > > There is, after all, a vast amount of research on kids in heterosexual >> > > two parent families, and mostly these kids do quite well—certainly >> > > better than kids in single-parent families (for obvious reasons). >> > > Christian conservatives then cite these studies to argue that >> > > heterosexual families are best for kids, but there’s just one glaring >> > > problem. In the studies of heterosexual two-parent families where >> > > children fare well, the comparison group is families with one mother >> > > or one father—not two mothers or two fathers. So to leap from these >> > > studies to conclusions about same sex parenting, explains University >> > > of Virginia social scientist Charlotte Patterson, is “what we call in >> > > the trade bad sampling techniques.” >> > >> > > But wait: Don’t Christian conservatives want to be factually right, >> > > and to believe what’s true about the world? And shouldn’t a proper >> > > reading of this research actually come as a relief to them, and help >> > > to assuage their concerns about dangerous social consequences of >> > > same-sex marriage or civil unions? If only it were that simple. We all >> > > want to be right, and to believe that our views are based on the best >> > > available information. But in this case, Christian conservatives >> > > utterly fail to get past their emotions, which powerfully bias their >> > > reasoning. Indeed, science doesn’t just demonstrate that the kids are >> > > all right in same-sex unions. It also shows how and why some people >> > > reason poorly in highly politicized cases like this one -- and, in the >> > > case of the anti-gay views of Christian conservatives, rely on their >> > > gut emotions to come up with wrong beliefs. Here’s how it works. >> > > There are a small number of Christian right researchers and >> > > intellectuals who have tried to make a scientific case against >> > > same-sex marriages and unions, by citing alleged harms to children. >> > > This stuff isn’t mainstream or scientifically accepted -- witness the >> > > APA’s statements on the matter. But from the perspective of the >> > > Christian right, that doesn’t really matter. When people are looking >> > > for evidence to support their deeply held views, the science suggests >> > > that people engage in “motivated reasoning.” Their deep emotional >> > > convictions guide the retrieval of self-supporting information that >> > > they then use to argue with, to prop themselves up. It isn’t about >> > > truth, it’s about feeling that you’re right -- righteous, even. >> > >> > > And where, in turn, do these emotions come from? Well, there’s the >> > > crux. A growing body of research shows that liberals and >> > > conservatives, on average, have different moral intuitions, impulses >> > > that bias us in different directions before we’re even consciously >> > > thinking about situations or issues. Indeed, this research suggests >> > > that liberals and conservatives even have different bodily responses >> > > to stimuli, of a sort that they cannot control. And one of the >> > > strongest areas of difference involves one’s sensitivity to the >> > > feeling of disgust. >> > >> > > A recent study, for instance, found that “individuals with marked >> > > involuntary physiological responses to disgusting images, such as of a >> > > man eating a large mouthful of writhing worms, are more likely to >> > > self-identify as conservative and, especially, to oppose gay marriage >> > > than are individuals with more muted physiological responses to the >> > > same images.” In other words, there’s now data to back up what we’ve >> > > always kind of known: The average conservative, much more than the >> > > average liberal, is having visceral feelings of disgust towards >> > > same-sex marriage. And then, when these conservatives try to >> > > consciously reason about the matter, they seize on any information to >> > > support or justify their deep-seated and uncontrolled response -- >> > > which pushes them in the direction of believing and embracing >> > >> > > information that appears to justify and ratify the emotional impulse. >> > >> > > And voila. Suddenly same-sex marriages and civil unions are bad for >> > > kids. How’s that for the power of human reason? >> > >> > > All people engage in emotion-guided or motivated reasoning, to be >> > > sure. But mounting evidence suggests that left and right may do so >> > > differently. And they definitely do so for different reasons -- as the >> > > present case so strongly demonstrates. >> > >> > > Does this mean we should be more tolerant of the intolerant, or less >> > > disgusted by those who may consider us disgusting? Maybe. After all, >> > > people may not have much control over these impulses. They may not >> > > even be aware of them. At the very least, such knowledge should >> > > increase our level of understanding of those who disagree with us. >> > >> > > In the end, however, facts are facts -- and emotions and gut instincts >> > > are an utterly unreliable way of identifying them. We can try to be >> > > understanding of people different from us -- even when they’re >> > > manifestly failing at the same task. But the latest research makes it >> > > more untenable than ever to base public policy on gut-driven >> > > misinformation. >> > >> > > Read more:http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/mooney.html#ixzz1tpwR6mqC >> > >> > > -- >> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> > > Have a great day, >> > > Tommy >> > >> > > -- >> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> > > Have a great day, >> > > Tommy- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > > > -- > *Mark M. Kahle H.* > * > * > * > * > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
