The reporters and the states call it a ban apparently...
Also, when you're allowed to do something, then told you are no longer allowed to do it...is that a ban?
"None of the 11 states allow same-sex marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 3,000 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice."
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To ban or not to ban? That is the question.
And it's a lame one. As I said, technically it's true. There is no legal ban. There is no law that says "You folks can't marry, neener neener neener." The laws state instead that marriage shall be one man and one woman.
But, and this is the important part, to the people fighting for acceptance of gay marriage, it's exactly the same thing. The possibility existed before, but the marriage amendments added one more large, possibly insurmountable hurdle to overcome. It's welding the door shut but saying that you haven't banned anyone from coming in. If it looks like a duck and legislates like a duck...
Arguing over the semantics when the real discussions need to be over the social advantages/disadavantages of gay marriage is useless and diversionary, as is the question of rights and privileges. Proponents of gay marriage who demand it as a right will lose. Proponents of gay marriage who demand it as a privilege will lose. Justified or not, both sound selfish, a whiff of "I want what they get."
What will bring gay marriage into society will be evidence of the injustice to the people and children involved and the benefit to society of a social structure for a large amount of its citizens, something this thread was starting to touch on before this digression.
[ October 11, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Not a single on prohibits gay marriage. They simply refuse to recognize it.
For all intents and purposes, the states banned gay marriage by refusing to recognize it.
quote:What will bring gay marriage into society will be evidence of the injustice to the people and children involved and the benefit to society of a social structure for a large amount of its citizens
Not exactly. When has evidence mattered in gaining social priveledges/rights? History shows us that protest and ornery-ness win out over honest, widespread cultural self-examination every time. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arguing over the semantics when the real discussions need to be over the social advantages/disadavantages of gay marriage is useless and diversionary
Thank you for that, Chris. I wanted to say that myself, but couldn't find the phrasing.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if I passed a law saying that Religion, and all the governmental breaks afforded to a religion, like being tax exempt organizations, would be defined as a belief system that excludes Jesus Christ, that wouldn't be banning Christianity?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are important reasons to make the distinction. When polygamy was banned, it was banned. Criminalized, even for people who didn't attempt to get the state to recognize their multiple marriages. Living in a house with multiple "wives" could result in lengthy prison terms. Prosecutions have happened within the last decade, I believe, and children have been taken away simply on a finding that the parents are engaging in polygamy.
Until recently, gay couples living in long-term committed relationships faced most of these risks; some still exist. But the progress has been immense and, since Lawrence, the ban on homosexual marriage has not been of the same quality as the ban on polygamy.
I think it's important that the wording reflect the difference. Gay couples are being denied a host of benefits that others get through marriage. This denial of benefits is what causes any existing social disadvantages. it also couches it more clearly as a benefit of law question, which is what I think more likely to change people's minds.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Refusal to give civil recognition to something most certainly is a ban on civil recognition of that thing.
Religion is banned from certain sorts of civil recognition. Gay marriage in the way the proponents are talking about it and you aren't is banned.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
OSC makes the point that no law bans anyone from marrying. What they are currently NOT permitted to do is enter into an arrangement that is something other than marriage, and then call it marriage.
I fear calling such arrangements "marriages" will only serve to further trivialize marriage, which, as many of you have pointed out, is not doing so well right now.
But it is the effects on the kids that concern me the most, for the following referenced reasons.
1. The life expectancy of homosexual men is 8 to 20 years shorter than the total male population.
Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997
2. Homosexuals are up to 6 times more likely to suffer from mental illness.
Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001)
Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999)
David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999)
3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book). The US Dept of Justice study below found an annual average of 13,740/16,900 homosexual/lesbian victims of domestic violence. (Aside: contrast that to 1,558 victims of sexual orientation hate crimes in 1999. Who's really the principal threat to homosexuals' safety?)
Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000)
U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine, (January 2000)
David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, Haworth Press (May 1991)
4. There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years. (Adultery destroys heterosexual marriages, so I don't think infidelity would help homosexual relationships.) On the contrary, homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year.
In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984)
Meyer-Balburg et. al., “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” 28 Journal of Sex Research, 1, 3-27 (1991).
Xiridou, Maria, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003
Where in this world would you put children?
In light of these numbers, how can ANYONE claim gay marriage will benefit children?
These are just a few of my societal reasons for opposing. I have a personal one as well, though it didn't develop until I already knew the foregoing.
I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
Early last year Gina began hanging out with this girl "Sarah." Sarah is several years younger than Gina, likes the same sport, and is a lesbian. They became inseparable in spite of Sarah's emotionally abusive and manipulative personality. Gina became increasingly hostile and Zoe became depressed under her influence. Gina revealed to Mom and Dad that she was considering living a lesbian lifestyle. Mom and Dad called a family meeting and shared this with us, encouraging us all to continue to love them both. I believe we did a decent job of this.
In May Gina and Zoe moved out. Gina's hostility and Zoe's depression got worse. Soon, Zoe told her best friend that her mom was "being gay with [Sarah]." We started noticing bruises on Gina's arms, neck and chin, depite her attempting to cover them with turtlenecks and long sleeves. Zoe drove off all her friends and started on an anti-depressant.
After a month or two Gina stopped the sex with Sarah, but continued being friends. They'd go to Vegas and take Zoe along. At some point Gina started drinking. (I didn't quote you the stats on lesbians and binge drinking.) Zoe was doing poorly in seventh grade.
Finally, maybe 8 months ago, Gina saw what was happening and told Sarah to stay away from both of them. Sarah continued to call and see Zoe behind Gina's back. At this point Zoe trusted and obeyed Sarah way more than she did her own mother, despite Sarah's constantly belittling her. Finally Gina confronted Sarah and Sarah stopped.
Zoe moved back in with her grandparents and is doing much better. She's happy, off the meds, and doing well in school. She has her best friend back. Gina, in the meantime, is pretty screwed up.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certainly no expert, but it seems unlikely that a lot of people are having 308 sex partners in a year. There are only 365 days in a year. When do they find time to cook and do laundry? If anyone has that kind of energy, it seems like they'd live a lot longer than the average population, to tell you the truth. Also, if there a lot of gay people in the closet, how on earth does anyone know how many people they are seeing anyhow? Honestly, I think those statistics sound pretty silly.
posted
Considering I have a pair of aunts who have been monogamous for approaching ten years now (how long they've been in a relationship, pretty much), I find your "statistics" laughable, and suspect all or almost all of them will prove likewise silly and false.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And don't 1 in 3 heterosexual men and 1 in 4 heterosexual women cheat, as well? Not that I have a source right now to back that up, but that's what I seem to remember reading.
posted
Maybe this is like the "Question Authority" thread? Someone says "statistics are this and that" and we aren't supposed to question it?
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year
Yeah, I find that highly suspicious, especially when you imagine the range of numbers that you'd need to get this "average" - taking the idea of a bell curve into consideration, if that statistic is true, for that to be an average, you'd need a fair number of people who had even more than 308 partners a year to counterbalance the ones who had more monogamous relationships. Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years.
My uncle has been living with the same man for 22 years now, and they claim to have been monogamous for that entire period. While I of course can't verify this claim, I think it's only charitable to assume they're telling the truth -- unless you can tell me why I should assume they aren't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
In all that blatantly false statistical cr@p, the one that bothered me the most was this statement about never being a documented case of ...
What a load of horse manure.
mistaben, I suggest that you double check all your facts (and your assumptions while you're at it). If you post obviously flawed data, all it does is destroy any shred of credibility you might have had.
If we can't trust your numbers, why should any of us trust your opinions. Flawed data lead to flawed decisions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
oops! You did indeed find an error. 308 was the average number of partners ever! Sorry for the confusion. As an aside, the person with the highest number of homosexual partners had 18,000.
Concerning monogamy, I was careful to leave the word "documented" in there for this very reason. There's bound to be some couples who have managed it, but they are exceptional.
As to whether or not the other statistics are "laughable," you're free to read the original journal articles and papers. That's why I posted them. If you find the researchers' methods equally humorous, please inform the universities where they did their respective studies. Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I won't repeat what others have said other than to say I can assure you none of your statistics apply to me, Chris, or very many of my gay friends.
The story about your family is a sad one. However, your personal anecdotes can only go so far. To take that story as an indication of the general unfitness of gays to parent is no different from taking a story of heterosexual abuse and extrapolating that no straight couple could be a fit parent.
308 sex partners per year indeed. . . I bet most of us are hard pressed to have 308 orgasms a year, including the ones we give ourselves. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I must ask the same of you. Check your assumptions if you are able to easily dismiss results that were published in peer-reviewed journal articles, several of them by individuals supportive of the homosexual movement.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say that there's never been a DOCUMENTED case of homosexual monogamy for more than five years...
To disprove that, don't we only need to find ONE case of monogamy?
And here we've found two.
What constitutes a documented case, anyway? I mean, it's not like they can stalk people in relationships to make sure they don't cheat, so I'm assuming they go off what people say. Which means that if we have people here who know others who have been or are themselves in a monogamous relationship that has lasted more than five years, these claims are just as valid as that "study" or whatever.
posted
Thanks Karl. I've been a lurker for too long.
I'm glad you're not among these unfortunate stats. While I personally don't think certain behaviors are good for individuals or society, I don't wish misery or pain on anyone!
You also bring up an excellent point that I forgot to add. My family's story, while supportive of some of the stats I listed, is indeed anecdotal, and should be treated as such.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The principal point of my post was simply to refute the title of the thread. I don't believe that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions will benefit kids in general, and these statistics are a few of my reasons. Lots of children may individually benefit, but I believe overall and in the long run society will be damaged.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would society be damaged if "lots of children may individually benefit?" Aren't the children a vital part of our society? I'm sorry, but that seems contradictory.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mistaben, you haven't answered pH's point. If we can find one case of a homosexual relationship lasting more than five years, what does it matter whether your citations come from peer-reviewed journals. I'm not in a position to question those articles since I haven't read them. I am in a position to question what you've posted ABOUT them. Whether those supposed facts came from the articles or you simply misunderstood them, the obvious conclusion is that the numbers are not factual and therefor not useful in forming decisions.
Perhaps there were some qualifiers on the statistic about "no cases of..."? If you'd like to use those stats, I merely suggested that you double check them. They don't pass the laugh test and so there's nothing compelling there for anyone else to go check. If you are going to state obvious falsehoods as if they are facts, you have to expect at least a certain amount of head scratching here.
Are the articles available online? If so, provide a link and I'll go check them out. If not, the citations are also pretty much moot for the moment, unless you have the journals in front of you and can give us some direct quotations.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions will benefit kids in general, and these statistics are a few of my reasons.
Point #1: Your statistics are questionable at best, and laughable at worst. Don't base your reasons on them.
Point #2: You may be confusing correlation with causation. Many of the behaviors you consider harmful in homosexuality may be a product of societal disapproval -- unless you believe that there is something about sticking tab A in slot B that inherently messes somebody up. (And if so, what?)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I personally believe his conclusions are questionable along with his conclusions. But unfortunately I'm not informed enough about statistics in general and psychiatry / medicine in particular to refute the studies and statistics he's linked.
I'm hoping that one of the many Hatrackers quite skilled in one, more, or all of those areas will give my uninformed and lazy self something better than it's laughable because we say so to go on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you actually like the context of all those studies, Rak? They've been cited so often by various anti-gay groups that I'm afraid I know most of the backstories by now. Of course, you can also find those studies on Google fairly easily nowadays, along with commentary, precisely because they're standard misused statistics in the FUD toolkit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. This is pretty much entirely due to HIV, and based on statistics over 20 years old. As HIV has disseminated more greatly in the heterosexual community now, and prevention efforts have been greatly successful in the homosexual community, these statistics are pretty much worthless for any current decisions.
2. The first study involved all of 120-odd homosexual people. It also found that homosexual people were around 2 to 5% more likely than heterosexual people to have one of a variety of conditions, many of them minor. Considering the social pressures on homosexual people even in relatively accepting countries, this is hardly surprising, and moreso relatively meaningless as far as judging a homosexual couple fit to adopt.
I didn't bother looking at the second two studies as my time is limited and the first study postdates the other two while criticizing all previous studies on the subject.
3. To quote the journal of family violence study, which talked about their significant sampling problems, "results should be interpreted cautiously, and may not be indicative of the entire gay / lesbian population." Quoting the same study "It further indicates that g / l / b/ t people experience physical and sexual violence at similar frequencies to heterosexual people. " Twice as likely indeed (note this study is both more recent and more reputable than the book).
4. I'm not even bothering with a book done in 1984 on homosexuality. On the study done in 2003, their use of the term steady partner was not based on relationships, but on the notion of a regular sex partner. As such, trying to say homosexuals in avowedly monogamous relationships will have 8 outside sexual partners a year (the number is from this study) is laughable.
I haven't even started looking for possible refutative studies, this is just the easy pickings from the very ones you cited.
Net findings: some useless statistics on life expectancy from 20 years ago (which even were they true couldn't feature in adoption decisions, or else you'd have to support forbidding black people from adopting on similar criteria), a tiny increase in possibility of mental issues which can be ameliorated entirely by the standard procedure of, y'know, not putting kids with people with mental issues or who seem at specifically risk for such based on interviews, and a flawed interpretation of data from a study on sex partnerships done in amsterdam, a location with (surprise surprise) a completely different sexual culture than the US, making the study precisely useless in determining whether its appropriate for US homosexual couples to adopt (not that its useful in the netherlands, either; the behaviors in the study are, again, ones that would be selected against in adoption, particularly as the study was specifically of young homosexual men).
BTW, someone needs to create a Shepard's for scientific studies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! And in the domestic violence study, they specifically not that the violence is due to a much smaller number of violent people that move from relationship to relationship.
Applying just a tidbit of logic, I'd like to note that homosexual couples, lacking marriage as an option, will tend to have a higher relationship mobility (marriage is a stabilizer); thus, we might expect higher numbers of homosexuals who had been in an abusive relationship than heterosexuals even with an extremely similar percentage of abusers. Though as noted before, the study itself argues the numbers who have been in abusive relationships are comparable at the resolution available.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I fear calling such arrangements "marriages" will only serve to further trivialize marriage, which, as many of you have pointed out, is not doing so well right now.
The thing is, de facto same-sex marriages do and will continue to exist. And kids seeing that they do so without getting married will simply be seeing it as one more case of adults blowing off marriage.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: But it is the effects on the kids that concern me the most, for the following referenced reasons.
1. The life expectancy of homosexual men is 8 to 20 years shorter than the total male population.
Yeah, yeah. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous on the whole than straight men, maybe. And lesbians tend to be less so than straight women. It has a lot to do with the basic differences between men and women.
Furthermore, denying the stabilizing factor of marriage to a segment of the population and then criticizing it for a phenomenon that results from the lack of stability is kind of creepy.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 2. Homosexuals are up to 6 times more likely to suffer from mental illness.
I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 3. 44% of homosexuals and 55% of lesbians report domestic physical violence ("twice the probability of a heterosexual couple"--see the Island & Letellier book).
Lesbians are the least likely of anyone to tolerate such behavior. That makes them more likely to report it when it happens. But I dispute those figures anyway.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: 4. There has never been a documented case of a homosexual relationship being completely monogomous for more than 5 years.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. But if you really believe it, I'll end it right now. My partner and I have been in an exclusive and monogamous relationship for almost 8 years now. I don't know what kind of "documentation" you want. I suspect that there's never been a "documented" case of a heterosexual relationship being monogamous for more than a year.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: (Adultery destroys heterosexual marriages, so I don't think infidelity would help homosexual relationships.) On the contrary, homosexuals on average have 308 sexual partners per year.
That's garbage. Heterosexuals have more sexual partners on average than lesbians. The fact is, men and women are different. This difference creates differences between male-male couples, male-female couples and female-female couples. Think about it for a while.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
Men or women? And what's the rate in the Netherlands for heterosexuals? Surely you wouldn't do anything as dishonest as compare gay stats from Holland with straight ones from the US.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: Where in this world would you put children?
In light of these numbers, how can ANYONE claim gay marriage will benefit children?
Your numbers are incredibly selective. And your polemic ignores the thrust of the argument, which is that the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent. You have straight people abandoning marriage at a tremendous rate, and here's this group of gay people who are dying to get married. It's not rocket science, mistaben.
Furthermore, none of the studies you presented deal with the subpopulation of gay couples with children. You might as well use stats about college party animals and apply them to suburban families with kids.
But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing, and that presenting slanted information is your intent.
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
I was once mugged by a black guy. Somehow, I've managed to avoid concluding from that that black people are violent criminals. From the sound of you, you wouldn't have.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. You guys are razor-sharp! I love this place!
Experimental physicists love to maximize confidence levels. That is, how well does our data support theory? I sometimes take it for granted that other researchers would do the same. Big mistake. So that's what I get for using someone else's compilation of research. A tit-for-tat response to fugu's items will have to wait for another post. But next time Google Scholar and I will go to town!
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The thing is, de facto same-sex marriages do and will continue to exist. And kids seeing that they do so without getting married will simply be seeing it as one more case of adults blowing off marriage.
I disagree. Kids already view marriage as an optional/maybe-later/ties-you-down/old-fashioned kind of thing. I think once the definition of marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples (and polyamorous groups, as is bound to happen, see http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301), marriage will become a complete joke. How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road? Then who will want to get married? If anything goes, it doesn't really mean anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yeah, yeah. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous on the whole than straight men, maybe. And lesbians tend to be less so than straight women. It has a lot to do with the basic differences between men and women.
Furthermore, denying the stabilizing factor of marriage to a segment of the population and then criticizing it for a phenomenon that results from the lack of stability is kind of creepy.
I don't think anything will change when same-sex marriage is available. People of any orientation who are sexually active with many partners before marriage will have a difficult time becoming monogamous. Not to say it's impossible; human beings are capable of amazing things. I just don't think loyalty will necessarily increase.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I suggest that if you were forced to hide who you are in order to avoid being maltreated by the majority, you might develop some stress disorders as well.
I've lived in Seattle for over a year now. Imagine, an old-fashioned conservative (though not Republican anymore--that's for a different thread) like me in a bastion of liberal thought like the Emerald City. I don't think I've developed any stress disorders, but it has been uncomfortable sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Lesbians are the least likely of anyone to tolerate such behavior. That makes them more likely to report it when it happens. But I dispute those figures anyway.
On what do you base the statement that lesbians wouldn't tolerate it and would report it?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. But if you really believe it, I'll end it right now. My partner and I have been in an exclusive and monogamous relationship for almost 8 years now. I don't know what kind of "documentation" you want. I suspect that there's never been a "documented" case of a heterosexual relationship being monogamous for more than a year.
Apparently no one has ever submitted a paper to a sociology journal including data that refutes this, at least at the time the referenced paper was published. That's all that means. I'm glad you've been loyal to your partner, and vice-versa. Things are soooo much better that way for both!
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's garbage. Heterosexuals have more sexual partners on average than lesbians. The fact is, men and women are different. This difference creates differences between male-male couples, male-female couples and female-female couples. Think about it for a while.
I've somewhat addressed this, but it is important to note that male-male dynamics and female-female dynamics are quite different.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: In the Netherlands, married homosexuals have 8 casual sexual encounters per year.
Men or women? And what's the rate in the Netherlands for heterosexuals? Surely you wouldn't do anything as dishonest as compare gay stats from Holland with straight ones from the US.
It was homosexual men with a steady partner. And surely I wouldn't (and didn't), but thanks for only intimating that I have no character, and not actually attacking.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Your numbers are incredibly selective. And your polemic ignores the thrust of the argument, which is that the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent. You have straight people abandoning marriage at a tremendous rate, and here's this group of gay people who are dying to get married. It's not rocket science, mistaben.
No, I agree exactly with what you just said above:"the institution of marriage would be less undermined in the eyes of our young people if marriage was more prevalent." But you write as though you believe a rush of homosexuals bursting through the floodgates to get married will send marriage rates through the roof and reenthrone marriage on its pedestal. I have a lot of trouble believing that will happen. Less than 5% of the US population is homosexual, and not all of them want to get married. Of those who do, how long will it last? There are couples like you and your partner, but the first gay divorce in MA was only 7 months after the first gay marriage in MA. If divorce rates among homosexual married couples are any different than those of heterosexuals, I'd suspect they'd be higher, not lower, especially among males. This can't help marriage, and will likely hurt it. It will help you, but not the institution.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Furthermore, none of the studies you presented deal with the subpopulation of gay couples with children. You might as well use stats about college party animals and apply them to suburban families with kids.
But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing, and that presenting slanted information is your intent.
Sounds pretty sinister!
Wanna know what really happened? It's quite simple. Lurker finds thread on topic of import to him. Lurker reads post asking for people's reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. Lurker remembers reading something somewhere with lots of interesting stats. Lurker transforms by the Power of Grayskull into mistaben. mistaben creates post with old stats. mistaben ignores feeling he should actually read all of the studies so as to not look like a fool. etc.
But thanks for the warm welcome.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mistaben: I now share the experience of my 13-year-old niece, "Zoe." She was born after her mother, "Gina," was date raped at age 17. They lived with my in-laws (but as their own family unit) until about a year ago.
I was once mugged by a black guy. Somehow, I've managed to avoid concluding from that that black people are violent criminals. From the sound of you, you wouldn't have.
No, it's seriously no big deal that you mock my family's pain and accuse me of being a bigot at the same time. See my exchange with KarlEd.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road?
I think this is the same for gay marriage threads as mentioning Nazis is for regular threads.
I see absolutely no point in debating with someone who could equate two people marrying with marrying a horse. It saddens me that you make that comparison.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How long before the ACLU is representing someone wanting to marry their father or their horse? Do you not see that coming if we take this road?
I think this is the same for gay marriage threads as mentioning Nazis is for regular threads.
I see absolutely no point in debating with someone who could equate two people marrying with marrying a horse. It saddens me that you make that comparison.
And it saddens me that you either didn't understand what I wrote or are deliberately putting words into my mouth.
Nor did you respond to the question. Do you deny the existence of incest and bestiality (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=brodeur19m&date=20050719, use bugmenot.com to get in)? Do you think a "zoophile" could not eventually find a federal judge who would pull a constitutional right to have sex with a horse out of Lawrence v. Texas?
Think about it. Respond to it. THEN you can attack me.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex with an animal, even if made legal, is nothing like marrying an animal. That's like suggesting sex with a blowup doll means there's a potential for a person marrying a blowup doll.
Saying a relationship potentially like marriage in every way (even for you, excepting the particular physical genders of the participants) is like the relationship between a person and a horse is offensive, stupid, and wrong.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as long as your "arguments" remain largely identical to those the opponents of miscegenation held high, it makes you awfully hard to take seriously.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, how would you get the horse to sign the marriage license?
If you want to play the "slippery slope" game: Eventually sexual intercourse with animals will become legal because giving them handjobs is legal right now, and has been for years. Heck, I saw a man masturbate an elephant on television, and he was getting paid to do it! (By the zoo, not by the elephant.) If this sort of thing isn't outlawed it'll erode marriage and elephant prostitution will be legalized!
Think about it. Respond to it. Or just dismiss it as obviously ridiculous drivel. You know, whichever.
posted
(Edit: This was in response to MPH) Meh, maybe it is. I don't see exactly how, but I'm not trying to make a point about the primary topic of gay marriage. I'm defending RRR's statement that there can be an argument ridiculous enough that he sees no point in debating it.
I think Mistaben would be better off pursuing the incest line for his comparison than the bestiality line. Somebody marrying their parent or child would still be a marriage between human beings, and so one could argue that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing incest-marriage more easily than that it would lead to allowing bestiality marriage. (I am not personally making that argument, just saying it's less easily dismissible than the marrying a horse idea.)
posted
Enigmatic-"Somebody marrying their parent or child would still be a marriage between human beings, and so one could argue that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing incest-marriage more easily than that it would lead to allowing bestiality marriage."
MUCH better argument, you're right.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
