Homosexuality

[darkie]

Seriously, there's a reason guys have cocks and chicks don't. Gay Marriage is wrong. Totaly Agree with everything deck knight (for a change perhaps :P) is saying and everything in that website

EDIT: im adding an actual argument to this

This basicly only applies to liberal christians:
Gay Marriage is a sin, its really as simple as that. That's why your not gay. If you are gay, then this doesnt apply to you obviously. If you saw someone on the street getting beat up, or some random loser picking on a little kid what are you gonna do? I'd go and show him up..wouldn't you? Ok..so then why should we feel bad for the gay people? Being gay is just as bad as bulling some random kid!

How is being gay the same as bullying a random kid? If anything, the gay person in your analogy would be the kid getting beat up, beat up by the government, society, and ignorant fools, like you are making yourself out to be.

Supporting gay marriage would be the equivealent of Jane Fonda going over to vietnam and sitting on thier guns. (1972 august 18th) ITS SIDING WITH THE ENEMEY. Now, I do believe that gay people are NOT our enemy, however, its just their actions. We can show them the way and get them to dig chicks. Gay Marriage is just..wrong.

I'm against gay marriage, but not because I'm some kind of homophobe. No, I'm against marriage in general, because in today's day and age, it fails.

From what you seem to be saying, all marriages are doomed to fail. However, that idea is inherently wrong; not all marriages fail. If I show you any example of a successful marriage in 'today's day and age, [your argument] fails'.

I'm sure I read a quote somewhere, something like, "Marriage is the worlds oldest institution"

...who the hell wants to live in an institution?! :nerd:

 

[majesty]

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

I'm gonna open by saying THIS is your primary source for your facts.

Do you honestly think that referencing catholic.com is a reliable source for homosexuality facts? REALLY? Maybe you can use that but lets get some balance instead of relying solely on what is arguably the biggest opponent of gay rights out there.

I particularly enjoyed these:
- Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight
- Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years

- Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals
- The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health

Deck should research the difference between correlation and causation.

I think that AA destroyed you there Deck. It rings true with m0nkfish's observations of your research as well. How the fuck can you corellate a higher suicidal rate in gays without possibly considering that more than a small fraction of them were probably disowned by their own families for their lifestyle? I bet when society tells you that you have no rights and treats you like a piece of shit you feel down...or depressed...or suicidal. Seriously long term mistreatment like that leads to suicide, not a lifestyle choice that involves having the kind of sex that you prefer. Use your head.

I highly doubt that those factoids that m0nkfish highlighted for us are even true. I would suggest that m0nkfish agrees with this and rightly so!! Once again look at your primary (and only) source: A biased intitute that has a marked history of propaganda against all sorts of 'enemies'.

Deck, please, either learn to research fairly and appropriately or just stop researching.

 

[Hipmonlee]

marriage is good

Agreed. Good for both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.

homosexuals are miserable

Possible, but how does this justify preventing them from marrying?

I mean first you say marriage makes people happy and then you say gay people are unhappy, and I dont see why this isnt an argument for homosexual marriage.

Also if Homosexuality in males is bad because they are more prone to STDs, couldnt someone also apply this argument to Heterosexuality in females?

something about adoption

Ok so lets say that in general children are better off being raised by heterosexuals. What does this have to do with the topic? Gays already are raising kids, the only thing that needs to be questioned here is whether children are better off being raised by married gay couples or unmarried gay couples. I cant be bothered finding stats to back me up, but it seems intuitive that the former is the better situation for all concerned.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

Why would same-sex marriage increase the divorce rate?

Feelings of love are only part of what holds a couple together. When things get tough, as they do from time to time in every marriage, external factors help hold the spouses together-external factors such as concern about their kids or about the attitudes of society, including their friends, relatives, co-workers, or church. The exploding divorce rate we have seen since "no-fault" destroyed much of the stigma of divorce shows how important external factors are in keeping couples together.

This is just ridiculous.. Honestly surely you can see the problem here? The sanctity of Marrriage is an important external factor in reducing promiscuity, Homosexuals are promiscuous and therefore cant be allowed to married..

I'm just flabbergasted.. there is no other word for it..

Have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

I see, so you're saying that these homosexuals (who currently are not allowed to marry) are worse-off than heterosexuals? Interesting. I wonder if there is some sort of lifestyle that promotes health and wellbeing?



Well, what do you know. By your correlational logic, it could easily be the absence of marriage that is a key problem for homosexual people. Of course, now you'll probably try to refute this argument by saying that the evidence only concerns heterosexual married couples but the fact is that if marriage for homosexuals was identical to that of heterosexuals, there is no reason that the above quote would not be applicable to both parties.

By the way, thanks for providing me with all the evidence I needed to make this argument. Really all anyone needs to do is read your post to counter your own argument!

I particularly enjoyed these:
- Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight
- Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years

- Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals
- The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health

Wow, you know I tried to spare quoting the whole damn thing, but I guess some people can't be assed to read an entire article, considering they deal with your query. Good Job being thorough m0nkfish.

If marriage has such benefits, why not let same-sex couples share them?

Heterosexual marriage has these benefits, and it is what the scientific studies have looked at. There is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples. We don't know whether same-sex couples would enjoy any of these benefits, and there are reasons to think they would not. This is a subject we will deal with more in Part IV of this special report. For now we are looking at the benefits and public impact of heterosexual marriage.

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are.62 Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for "cruising" will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.

55# A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
56# Ibid.
57# Ibid.
58# J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-88.
59# S. Sarantakos, "Same-Sex Couples: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Family Studies 2 (1996): 147-63; P. Tjaden, N. Thoennes, and C. J. Allison, "Comparing Violence Over the Life Span in Samples of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Cohabitants," Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 413-25.
60# Stanley Kurtz, "What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage," Commentary, September 2000, 35-41.
61# Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995).
62# D. M. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994); D. Symons, The Evolution of Sexuality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); M. Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: Penguin, 1993); S. Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Chicago: Open Court, 1993).

Why isn't it enough for marriage if two people have feelings for each other?

Marriage is about more than just the feelings of two people. Feelings are important, but they aren't the whole of it. We all know that feelings change and that any marriage has its ups and downs. A good marriage has more ups than downs, a bad one more downs than ups, but emotions change from one day to the next. Sometimes they're very loving, and sometimes they're very negative.

Marriage does involve very personal feelings, but this does not mean that it is merely a private matter. Whether it succeeds or fails, a marriage has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around them, and the entire society. As an institution, marriage is the business of everyone in society. It takes more than emotion to hold a marriage together, as we have seen.

What do homosexual activists hope to gain from legalizing same-sex marriage?

Motives probably vary, depending on the activist. Many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. They want societal acceptance. Others may be seeking absolution for a guilty conscience. Some probably want society to say that what they are doing is morally right. But you don't have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person's longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don't have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That's not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.

The statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers. That is bizarre behavior. Something is dreadfully wrong with the psychology of people who seek random sex-a fact we see confirmed by their suicide, drug, and antisocial behavior statistics.

Legalization of same-sex marriage will not bring absolution nor deliver inner peace. Homosexuals will continue to suffer from the problems their "lifestyle" creates, even if every state legislature and both houses of Congress were to pass bills extolling homosexual behavior and privileging their relationships over those of heterosexuals. Active homosexuals will continue seeking something that they will never find through the things they do with strangers. They will still be tragically unhappy people. Such behavior will never offer the basis for marriage nor satisfy their relationship needs as persons. Homosexuals need compassion, but since they will not benefit by homosexual "marriage," there is no reason for society to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In fact, recognition of this intrinsically disordered behavior can have only bad effects on society.

Emphasis mine.

Seriously m0nkfish, being contrarian is not effective. Now I realize this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, but spouting off first without thought (or respect for your opponents) doesn't promote anything constructive.

This is just ridiculous.. Honestly surely you can see the problem here? The sanctity of Marrriage is an important external factor in reducing promiscuity, Homosexuals are promiscuous and therefore cant be allowed to married..

I'm just flabbergasted.. there is no other word for it..

Homosexuals by their behaviors do not value a healthy definition of marriage, as summarized above being unconditional, exclusive, and permanent (ignoring sexual complimentarity for the moment). They value an incomplete definition of marriage that allows for an opt out in case they find out they no longer "love" their partner. Marriage is not a reduction of bad behaviors involving infidelity, it is either an elimination or it doesn't work.

 

[mf]

OK so consider my post as having quoted directly from the article. The point still stands and you have made no effort to contradict it. Having "no data showing similar benefits" is most probably a clever lingual device to get around the fact that they just have no data (Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't see any studies linked).

I also can't believe that you're trying to counter an argument for gay monogamous marriage with STI infections related to promiscuity. Honestly, your logic is just insanely contrived. Occam's razor - letting people get married will reduce their promiscuity.

Wow, you know I tried to spare quoting the whole damn thing, but I guess some people can't be assed to read an entire article, considering they deal with your query. Good Job being thorough m0nkfish.

I guess some people can't even be assed to provide their own argument, they just put a quick google search in and paste the results, picking out a few things that they think are relevant and then complain when the arguments they hand-picked get shot down. Good Job being thorough Deck Knight.

p.s. here is a useful link for your next post http://www.google.com/search?q=arguments+against+gay+marriage

 

[Deck Knight]

OK so consider my post as having quoted directly from the article. The point still stands and you have made no effort to contradict it.

My response to Hipmonlee will suffice:

Homosexuals by their behaviors do not value a healthy definition of marriage, as summarized above being unconditional, exclusive, and permanent (ignoring sexual complimentarity for the moment). They value an incomplete definition of marriage that allows for an opt out in case they find out they no longer "love" their partner. Marriage is not a reduction of bad behaviors involving infidelity, it is either an elimination or it doesn't work.

Of course, I don't really respect Sully (Andrew Sullivan) that much because as far as "conservatives" go he would be like the Zell Miller equivalent of Democrats.

 

[Hipmonlee]

But you don't have to be a theologian, nor even religious, to understand that any form of behavior that cuts a person's longevity in half and comes with a lengthy list of venereal diseases is simply not right. You don't have to be the pope to see that. A thoughtful atheist can discover easily a completely secular natural morality that says: This behavior kills people. People should live. But homosexual behavior kills homosexuals. That's not right. Homosexuals need to live just like everyone else.

Now what you have to prove is that the life-cutting effect of homosexuality is caused by homosexual acts and not the fact that these people were suffering from the "mental disorder" that is homosexuality (or the third possibility that it comes from being prevented from marriage and guilt created by the bigoted views of the catholic church etc).

Homosexuals by their behaviors do not value a healthy definition of marriage, as summarized above being unconditional, exclusive, and permanent (ignoring sexual complimentarity for the moment). They value an incomplete definition of marriage that allows for an opt out in case they find out they no longer "love" their partner. Marriage is not a reduction of bad behaviors involving infidelity, it is either an elimination or it doesn't work.

You are gonna have to back this up somehow.. I mean, maybe it is true that all homosexuals don't value marriage, but I am not just gonna take your word for it..

Have a nice day.

 

[majesty]

Deck, would you be opposed to a gay union that isn't marriage but has all the same rights?

How do homosexuals not value a healthy definition of marriage? I know a few that are more in love with each other than many straight couples I've seen. That's an ignorant viewpoint, Deck, to assume that.

 

[mf]

My response to Hipmonlee will suffice:

Homosexuals by their behaviors do not value a healthy definition of marriage, as summarized above being unconditional, exclusive, and permanent (ignoring sexual complimentarity for the moment). They value an incomplete definition of marriage that allows for an opt out in case they find out they no longer "love" their partner. Marriage is not a reduction of bad behaviors involving infidelity, it is either an elimination or it doesn't work.

Oh, well its great that you can just generalise like that but unfortunately it does absolutely nothing for your argument. Just saying something doesn't make it true, especially when it pertains to the values of others - you have no clue what any individual values and even if you did, you certainly cannot extend that to an entire group of people to which an individual just happens to belong. That's like saying that all Christians supported the war in Iraq because George Bush is a Christian.

 

[Deck Knight]

You are gonna have to back this up somehow.. I mean, maybe it is true that all homosexuals don't value marriage, but I am not just gonna take your word for it..

Have a nice day.

Perhaps it is the fact sex with random strangers is a halmark of their behavior to the point where they are dying off twice as quickly as heterosexuals? Might they suggest they have problems with commitment?

If you have problems with committment, getting a slip of paper that says "marriage" on it is not going to help you.

Are you being purposely dense or can you really not understand that all the behaviors that go along with homosexuality are antithetical to a healthy marriage? A marriage means nothing if both partners are not willing to forsake all others.

What about a piece of paper signed by the Justice of the Peace is going to suddenly make homosexuals value fidelity? If they can't hold fast to each other without a government signed representation of their relationship, what makes you think ink on paper is going to change their behavior?

majesty:

It isn't ignorant majesty, it is an easy observation to make after looking at the stats. It is a reasoned argument based on empirical data. Ignorance would be ignoring the data and then saying "there is no proof. PROVE it to me Deck! Mind Meld with me and make me understand!"

Deck, would you be opposed to a gay union that isn't marriage but has all the same rights?

I would support a policy that provides one blanket contract that provides for hospital visitation rights, transference of property, and all the other rights part and parcel to providing for the living health and final wishes of the couple in question. The only thing such a policy would actually do is replicate arrangements that can already currently be made by a lawyer, but streamline them into a package deal.

 

[majesty]

Basically it's a nice loophole, deck knight, to ending this debate once and for all. If the homosexuals bitch about having rights but not having it called marriage, they have lost sight of what they are fighting for.

At least you support their rights despite all this negative digging. Did you come across anything that shows benefits of same sex relationships?

 

[Surgo]

Perhaps it is the fact sex with random strangers is a halmark of their behavior to the point where they are dying off twice as quickly as heterosexuals? Might they suggest they have problems with commitment?

The fuck are you on about? I'll raise your anecdotal evidence with some of my own, that of all the gay friends I have being in long-term committed relationships that are in no way, shape, or form "open" or "swinging".

Homosexuals by their behaviors do not value a healthy definition of marriage, as summarized above being unconditional, exclusive, and permanent (ignoring sexual complimentarity for the moment). They value an incomplete definition of marriage that allows for an opt out in case they find out they no longer "love" their partner. Marriage is not a reduction of bad behaviors involving infidelity, it is either an elimination or it doesn't work.

Despite this being useless and having no basis in fact, I'll bite: this is different from today's mass divorces how?

 

[Deck Knight]

Oh, well its great that you can just generalise like that but unfortunately it does absolutely nothing for your argument. Just saying something doesn't make it true, especially when it pertains to the values of others - you have no clue what any individual values and even if you did, you certainly cannot extend that to an entire group of people to which an individual just happens to belong. That's like saying that all Christians supported the war in Iraq because George Bush is a Christian.

So what you're saying monkfish, is that you are going to ignore data from empirical studies in order to assert I am making a broad unfounded generalization.

You can judge values by behavior. The citations provided are studies on behavior. If the behaviors exhibited run counter to values like fidelity, any logical person would then infer that the values being contradicted are not valued by those that contradict them.

I'm glad we cleared that up. Now, are you going to actually discuss the subject at hand or would you prefer to continue ducking debate in favor of putting words in my mouth?

 

[mf]

Perhaps it is the fact sex with random strangers is a halmark of their behavior

I would just love to see evidence of this 'fact'. I assume that this refers to all homosexuals, since your argument is that no homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

 

[Deck Knight]

The fuck are you on about? I'll raise your anecdotal evidence with some of my own, that of all the gay friends I have being in long-term committed relationships that are in no way, shape, or form "open" or "swinging".

Despite this being useless and having no basis in fact, I'll bite: this is different from today's mass divorces how?

So what your saying is, your assertions backed by anecdotal evidence are superior to evidence provided by long ranging study.

Why is it that I am the only one pressed to back my assertions when my data comes from a source that cites a long ranging study.

Why don't you folks back your assertions such as "this being useless and having no basis in fact."

How about that? Why don't you back up your assertions. Why don'y you cite your sources, if you are all so eager for a productive discussion. Mine stand quite well, that you very much.

Either put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your assertions or stop lambasting me for not doing my homework. The only one showing any intellectual honesty here is me. All the rest of you are being purposely evasive an making claims with no actual support.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Perhaps it is the fact sex with random strangers is a halmark of their behavior to the point where they are dying off twice as quickly as heterosexuals? Might they suggest they have problems with commitment?

I know heterosexuals who have sex with random strangers, I know gays who dont.

If you have problems with committment, getting a slip of paper that says "marriage" on it is not going to help you.

Well actually your website says that it does???

Are you being purposely dense or can you really not understand that all the behaviors that go along with homosexuality are antithetical to a healthy marriage? A marriage means nothing if both partners are not willing to forsake all others.

Gay people can do that. Gay people do do that. All the behaiviours that go along with homosexuality? Come on.............................................

What about a piece of paper signed by the Justice of the Peace is going to suddenly make homosexuals value fidelity? If they can't hold fast to each other without a government signed representation of their relationship, what makes you think ink on paper is going to change their behavior?

But your link says that heterosexual people cant hold fast to each other without marriage? Your link, not mine. Yours. You.

Have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

I would just love to see evidence of this 'fact'. I assume that this refers to all homosexuals, since your argument is that no homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

This is the same twisted logic that says because 1% of abortions cause rape, all abortion should be legal.

Sex with multiple partners is the general rule regarding homosexuals, not the exception. You make public policy based on the rule.

 

[mf]

You can judge values by behavior. The citations provided are studies on behavior. If the behaviors exhibited run counter to values like fidelity, any logical person would then infer that the values being contradicted are not valued by those that contradict them.

Behaviour is influenced heavily by external influences. Data is data, it has no context. If it is evaluated by a reliable and impartial source (read: not catholic.com) then the conclusions may be granted integrity.

This is the same twisted logic that says because 1% of abortions cause rape, all abortion should be legal.

Sex with multiple partners is the general rule regarding homosexuals, not the exception. You make public policy based on the rule.

As far as I'm aware there aren't any rules that say you need to have multiple partners if you are a homosexual.

Oh, and who on earth claims that abortions cause rape? That's ridiculous.


Your entire argument seems to be based around evidence that you do not readily provide or cite, claiming that homosexuals are promiscuous and that promiscuity is bad, and that for some reason this means that having a deep and committed relationship is 'not enough reason' to be permitted to marry. Never mind the fact that gay people aren't allowed to marry, so it is perfectly logical that they have more sexual partners - unmarried people are far more promiscuous than married. 'Are you being purposely dense', or do you not recognise that marriage is a preventer of promiscuity?

 

[Surgo]

Does anyone have / can find a copy of sources 55 that I can actually read without shelling out cash? I have serious doubts about the study accuracy and the interpretation thereof, seeing as how it was published 30 years ago, but I can't check this out because I can't get the damn book.

So what your saying is, your assertions backed by anecdotal evidence are superior to evidence provided by long ranging study.

Why is it that I am the only one pressed to back my assertions when my data comes from a source that cites a long ranging study.

Why don't you folks back your assertions such as "this being useless and having no basis in fact."

How about that? Why don't you back up your assertions. Why don'y you cite your sources, if you are all so eager for a productive discussion. Mine stand quite well, that you very much.

Either put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your assertions or stop lambasting me for not doing my homework. The only one showing any intellectual honesty here is me. All the rest of you are being purposely evasive an making claims with no actual support.

My first statement gets analyzed when I can get a text copy of the bloody source material (thirty years old and it's not in some free online publication? Come fucking on), the second however is a valid criticism of such interpretation because it smells like serious hypocrisy.

 

[Synre]

So what your saying is, your assertions backed by anecdotal evidence are superior to evidence provided by long ranging study.

How about that? Why don't you back up your assertions. Why don'y you cite your sources, if you are all so eager for a productive discussion. Mine stand quite well, that you very much.

Either put up or shut up. Provide evidence for your assertions or stop lambasting me for not doing my homework. The only one showing any intellectual honesty here is me. All the rest of you are being purposely evasive an making claims with no actual support.

Your source is catholic.com in a debate where it is completely obvious that it is a biased source. Your source doesn't stand 'quite well' with anyone but you, said source doesn't have any information about how the research information, if it exists at all, was collected, and who it was collected from. I find it extremely unlikely, as apparently do most of the other people posting in this thread, that the article you linked is anything other than anecdotal evidence by an organization that is infamously anti-gay. Sources such as "Catechism of the Catholic Church 1613, 1653.", "Pope Paul VI", "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents", and What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage,"(cited multiple times) probably didn't do a whole lot to sway anyone, either.

I added the 'School-Based Sample of Adolescents' source since it was the only thing that appeared to have actually done any research at all, which is interesting because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use a single school as a sample to try to infer anything about a group of people of a wide variety of ages and races living all over the world.

Sex with multiple partners is the general rule regarding homosexuals, not the exception. You make public policy based on the rule.

I'm still waiting to see a source with any validity at all that I can actually read that proves anything even resembling this. It has been the basis of you argument for much of this thread but I haven't actually see a source that proves this. I would love to see some evidence showing that this is true for a majority of homosexuals, or really even that it is true for more homosexuals than heterosexuals, since I tend to hear about heterosexuals having sex with more people than just their spouses rather frequently.

 

[Deck Knight]

But your link says that heterosexual people cant hold fast to each other without marriage? Your link, not mine. Yours. You.

Have a nice day.

It says cohabitation does not confer the benefits of marriage, and then gives reasons for such. Marriage starts with committment. Commitment comes BEFORE marriagem not after. Getting a marriage will not reinforce commitment, commitment is the horse which must go before the cart.

Are these the only factors by which marriage produces greater health?

No. Psychologists tell us that much of the health and longevity benefit of marriage comes because married people have a greater sense of life purpose. Married people are happier, more optimistic, and more energetic than singles, and they are less likely to become depressed.18 Proponents of same-sex marriage have sought to debunk these statistics as self-fulfilling prophecies, reflecting that happy people are more likely to get married than unhappy people. But careful studies have found that marriage, in itself, improves mental health just as it improves physical health.19 It isn't just avoiding "stupid bachelor behavior" or making more trips to the doctor that is at work here. Marriage itself makes people healthier and happier and therefore allows them to live longer.

Married people have sex considerably more often than single people do, and they enjoy it more. Studies consistently show that both married men and married women enjoy sex much more than single people do-especially single women, who, in most studies, don't seem to be having much fun.20 But it isn't just women having better sex: Studies show that men find sex in a committed relationship far more satisfying than casual sex. Despite all the myths and television shows, men value commitment nearly as much as women do. Researchers also have observed that sexual infidelity hampers sexual satisfaction and general happiness in both sexes.21 Fidelity makes you happier and improves your marriage, and, as we have seen, people in happier marriages live longer.

Heterosexual couples who cohabitate-who live together without marriage-do not enjoy most of these benefits of marriage.22 Their lack of commitment to one another and their preference for autonomy and separateness deprives them of most of the emotional and sexual benefits of marriage and most of its health and longevity advantages. Marriage matters.

What other benefits does marriage have?

Marriage, unlike cohabitation, also makes people richer.23 After men marry, they work more productively and make more money than they did when they were single.24 Women also become more productive workers when they marry and earn more money than they did when they were single,25 although they do leave the workforce from time to time to bear and raise children. Marriage overall has a positive financial impact on both sexes.26

Married couples tend to specialize, dividing household tasks according to the talents and interests of each spouse. Specialization makes them more efficient, so they have more time for each other, for parenting, or for other activities.27 Further, since two can live almost as cheaply as one, household overhead decreases with marriage, and savings increase.28

17# Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 47-77.
18# Ibid, 57, 65-77.
19# Marks and Lambert, op. cit., 652-86.
20# Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Scott Stanley and Howard Markman, Marriage in the 90s: A Nationwide Random Phone Survey (Denver: PREP, Inc., 1997).
21# Robert G. Bringle and Bram P. Buunk, "Extradyadic Relationships and Sexual Jealousy," in Sexuality in Close Relationships, eds. K. McKinney and S. Sprecher (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991), 135-53.
22# Arne Mastekaasa, "The Subjective Well-being of the Previously Married: The Importance of Unmarried Cohabitation and Time Since Widowhood or Divorce," Social Forces 73 (1994): 665-92.
23# U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1997), 466, table 719.
24# Sanders Korenman and David Neumark, "Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?" Journal of Human Resources 26 (1991): 282-307.
25# Linda Waite, "Does Marriage Matter?" Demography 32 (1995): 483-507, esp. 495-6.
26# Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 109.
27# Frances K. Goldscheider and Linda J. Waite, New Families, No Families? The Transformation of the American Home (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991).
28# Gary S. Becker, "Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor," Journal of Labor Economics 3, no. 1 (1985): 533-58; Shoshana Grossbard-Schechtman, On the Economics of Marriage: A Theory of Marriage, Labor and Divorce (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1993).

I grow weary of this nonsense. You are all being deliberately obtuse and not researching. Gay marriage is your sacred ox that can never be gored. You are not interested in actually learning anything or discussion. You will even stoop so low as to misrepresent the source I am using when even clicking on the source would answer your query.

You want context m0nkfish? The Folsom Street Fair is a representative example of how gay men view fidelity: masturbating each other in the street. You can be naive and pretend they are on the whole just like the rest of us, but wishful thinking isn't sound reasoning. There is no argument that can dissuade you because you say data doesn't matter without context, and then proceed to ignore anything that provides context. You then attack the source, dispite the fact the source is just a summary based on other sources.

I'm done here. None of you show any interest in even the smallest modicum of intellectual honesty. (Arguing the source isn't effective m0nkfish.) You have drunk the gay marriage koolaid and nothing can persuade you from your position. I have struggled with the position on and off because I am sensitive to the issue and do care about what is moral and right. The more I have learned the more I have decided against gay marriage.

 

[Synre]

I grow weary of this nonsense. You are all being deliberately obtuse and not researching. Gay marriage is your sacred ox that can never be gored. You are not interested in actually learning anything or discussion. You will even stoop so low as to misrepresent the source I am using when even clicking on the source would answer your query.

Your source is questionable at best and I find it hysterical that you are accusing other people of not wanting to learn or discuss.

You started out with a post in this thread where your primary source was the united states catholic bishops website. After that you had a petty argument post with SSBM Roy, and then you came back with a post where your primary source was... catholic.com.

Of the two primary sources you have used this thread, both are based in catholicism. While I think it is obvious that a majority of catholics are not as extreme in the antigay department as those of us who are pro-gay might like to admit, it is equally obvious that these sources are not unbiased.

I also liked how you referenced the APA formerly considering homosexuality a mental disorder in one of your posts, even though it's been three decades since they retracted that mistake. As far as unbiased sources, the APA would be a good start given that it exists largely to discover the truth of situations like this one, but it seems to disagree with an awful lot of what you are saying.

You want context m0nkfish? The Folsom Street Fair is a representative example of how gay men view fidelity: masturbating each other in the street.

And for the third time in two threads you bring this up. In both of the previous occasions you've ignored my reply so I'm not certain why I'm bothering to post again, but last time you referenced this I wrote

It's pretty ridiculous that you're trying to pass off a group of fetishists as an accurate representative for all gays and lesbians. If you honestly believe that sort of thing is appealing(or okay) to all of those people I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue but regardless of that there are plenty of equally disturbing acts straights have done with various fetishes.

That fair is about as representative of gays as necrophiliacs are of straights.

You can be naive and pretend they are on the whole just like the rest of us, but wishful thinking isn't sound reasoning. There is no argument that can dissuade you because you say data doesn't matter without context, and then proceed to ignore anything that provides context. You then attack the source, dispite the fact the source is just a summary based on other sources.

Except in the links you've posted, the 'other sources' have never been researchable. You've posted religious websites that site sources that by and large we aren't able to check, which makes it about as valuable as if it hadn't sited sources at all.

I'm done here. None of you show any interest in even the smallest modicum of intellectual honesty. (Arguing the source isn't effective m0nkfish.) You have drunk the gay marriage koolaid and nothing can persuade you from your position. I have struggled with the position on and off because I am sensitive to the issue and do care about what is moral and right.

Yes, keep fighting the good fight. The bible will always tell you what is morally correct and there are no shades of gray in the world.

Keeping sipping the jesus koolaid and everything will be a-ok.

 

[mf]

Your problem is that you want to apply different logic to different areas of your argument. As you quoted above, marriage is good for your health both physically and mentally, contributes to the economy and makes you less likely to be promiscuous. So why are you opposed to a committed gay couple getting married?

You just can't answer that simple question without changing the question itself because apparently homosexuals are not committed.

I think this thread has just about come to its conclusion, I doubt anyone will have anything new to say (that's intelligent and debate-worthy).

 

[ls]

I'm done here. None of you show any interest in even the smallest modicum of intellectual honesty. (Arguing the source isn't effective m0nkfish.) You have drunk the gay marriage koolaid and nothing can persuade you from your position. I have struggled with the position on and off because I am sensitive to the issue and do care about what is moral and right. The more I have learned the more I have decided against gay marriage.

Your self-righteousness and bombast are amusing considering the arguments you attempt. When all is said and done, you are arguing for denying people rights based on genetic arbitrariness; you can have no intellectual or moral high ground. If the only arguments we were able to muster against you were "apoius[;lys;sa oherawtyh," you would still be arguing an untenable and cruel position. Sophistry can never undo that fact.

 

[prettyboiswagggg]

Teifu said everything that needed to be said: Deck Knight really does ignore that which does not agree with him, he answers questions with questions, and cites heavily biased sources to back himself up.

There's no point in arguing with someone who solidified their position before they ever began arguing, regardless of how "sensitive" to this he claims himself.