Are Homosexual Relationships Really the Same?

[Redress]

No, you make it to be a bigger difference than it really is. Most heterosexual couples get married if they've been together more than a few years and are monogamous, leaving those who remain just couples predictably promiscuous. You're trying to bias the sample. In comparison, homosexuals are less willing to get married, as they put far less value on monogamy.

Assumptions that excede the data you have provided. Sorry, you don't get to change parameters whenever you want.

 

[Redress]

"I am not claiming there are no significant differences."

Either there are significant differences or there aren't. If they aren't significant then prove it, if they are then admit it.

Do you really not understand the difference between making no claim, and making a claim?

 

[chromium]

Using the FRC as a scientific source is like saying it's an abomination cause the bible says so. You're gonna have to do better than that.

 

[Cyrylek]

Gays can call themselves whatever they want, but don't expect me to recognize their relationships, much less call them "married".

So, don't recognize and don't call. "Gay marriage" is not about your or my recognition or semantic preferences. It is about eliminating the gross injustice of our government discriminating against a group of its law-abiding citizens. If you or I fall in love abroad, we will have no problem with obtaining bride visas for our girls. No such luck for gay couples. So much for "pursuit of happiness"....

 

[phattonez]

Assumptions that excede the data you have provided. Sorry, you don't get to change parameters whenever you want.

Should I instead use your biased samples? Would that make you happy?

 

[phattonez]

Do you really not understand the difference between making no claim, and making a claim?

You tell me how you can look at that day and objectively state that nothing can be derived from it.

 

[phattonez]

Using the FRC as a scientific source is like saying it's an abomination cause the bible says so. You're gonna have to do better than that.

I'm not using them as a source. I'm using the studies that they cite as a source.

 

[phattonez]

So, don't recognize and don't call. "Gay marriage" is not about your or my recognition or semantic preferences. It is about eliminating the gross injustice of our government discriminating against a group of its law-abiding citizens. If you or I fall in love abroad, we will have no problem with obtaining bride visas for our girls. No such luck for gay couples. So much for "pursuit of happiness"....

Uhuh, not the discussion that I'm getting into.

 

[Redress]

Should I instead use your biased samples? Would that make you happy?

What samples are those?

 

[Cyrylek]

Uhuh, not the discussion that I'm getting into.

Because your libertarian ideas cannot really coexist with your socially conservative cultural memes?

 

[Redress]

You tell me how you can look at that day and objectively state that nothing can be derived from it.

Correct. I have not closely looked at the study yet, so I cannot say anything about it beyond the abstract, which as I have shown, does not allow for the conclusion you gives it.

 

[What if...?]

Men and women are in heterosexual relationships, are they not?

I'll type slower.

The "problem" isn't homosexuality, its that men are pigs.

Biological imperative and all that.

Lesbians have entirely different issues.

 

[ChezC3]

Because your libertarian ideas cannot really coexist with your socially conservative cultural memes?

If I may interject. Certainly libertarian ideas can coexist with socially conservative principles. (If I never hear or see the word "meme" again it will be too soon.)

Why you'd think the two are incompatible is due to a dereliction in adhering to libertarian principles. Gun-toting, Bible thumping, pro-life, traditional marriage villains who choose to live a certain way in a certain place, at a certain time, do not require you to live with them. Same thing with the opposite. Abortion having, Gay marital vow taking, kumbaya singing that every opinion is valid, relativistic communes can sprout up all over, can live as they want to live just so long as they don't expect people over there to find it acceptable and just so long as they both don't attempt to force upon each other their respective lifestyles.

You cannot expect to live in a pluralized society when you've got polarization. Keeping each group from how they want to live is in direct opposition to libertarian principles. You forcing me to accept something which my conscience refuses to accept is just as much a form of oppression as me demanding that you live by a moral code you have no desire to adhere to.

Therefore, a decentralization of social issues is the only fair and equitable means to alleviate the quagmire we find ourselves in. If this means State A doesn't allow abortion and gay marriage but State B does, guess who needs to go where if they choose to live by their own conscience?

Libertarian ideals doesn't mean anything goes and we must weather the storm of a conflicted conscience. Just as social conservatism doesn't mean that the code of conduct, principles, and morals that people share and choose to live by must be universally accepted by all.

 

[Cyrylek]

If I never hear or see the word "meme" again it will be too soon.

Duly noted. I sort of wanted to edit - but the brutally short waiting period of Debate Politics was already over...

Why you'd think the two are incompatible is due to a dereliction in adhering to libertarian principles. Gun-toting, Bible thumping, pro-life, traditional marriage villains who choose to live a certain way in a certain place, at a certain time, do not require you to live with them. Same thing with the opposite. Abortion having, Gay marital vow taking, kumbaya singing that every opinion is valid, relativistic communes can sprout up all over, can live as they want to live just so long as they don't expect people over there to find it acceptable and just so long as they both don't attempt to force upon each other their respective lifestyles.

You cannot expect to live in a pluralized society when you've got polarization. Keeping each group from how they want to live is in direct opposition to libertarian principles. You forcing me to accept something which my conscience refuses to accept is just as much a form of oppression as me demanding that you live by a moral code you have no desire to adhere to.

Therefore, a decentralization of social issues is the only fair and equitable means to alleviate the quagmire we find ourselves in. If this means State A doesn't allow abortion and gay marriage but State B does, guess who needs to go where if they choose to live by their own conscience?

Libertarian ideals doesn't mean anything goes and we must weather the storm of a conflicted conscience. Just as social conservatism doesn't mean that the code of conduct, principles, and morals that people share and choose to live by must be universally accepted by all.

And all that is good and fine, but...what about those international gay couples (for example)? Do they have the elementary free-choice right to be together - or do they not?

 

[ChezC3]

Duly noted. I sort of wanted to edit - but the brutally short waiting period of Debate Politics was already over...

Yes, my proofreading skills I have had to sharpened as a result of the 2 minute warning drills that we must go through...

And all that is good and fine, but...what about those international gay couples (for example)? Do they have the elementary free-choice right to be together - or do they not?

Sure. The over-arching Federal government must remain neutral in this, neither allowing for nor prohibiting against. Leaving the authority for either/or up to the individuals of the respective States, Counties, Municipalities. (my personal preference would be to vest this authority for these social conventions at the most local forms of government.)

You know my position -- Do as thou wilt.

All the "rights" a traditional married couple have should be allowed by whomever, in regards to property, next of kin, et al... I don't honestly think if you put the argument into purely this context that anyone would say a peep in protest. This isn't however the agenda that is on the table. It isn't simply about "rights" of marriage. It is about demanding social acceptance. This, as you know, I cannot in any way, shape, or form, agree to. It is the stumbling block which denies homosexual couples their rights. You don't have a "right" to be accepted by society. Certainly not in a free society. I'm sorry, you just don't.


*reading this again if you're just asking if globally homosexuals should have a fundamental right to be together, YES. Freedom of association and all that...

 

[Redress]

No, they're not.

Family Research Council



Which gives credence to this:

The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)

Got done babysitting and got a bit of time to actually look at this "study". Holy **** it is bad. It uses data from an online poll(hint: that is not good). It uses the study of relationships among HIV positive men in Amsterdam(major selection problems). And I could go on and on but I do have things to do yet tonight. Considering that it is comparing unmarried gay men to married couples to show less monogamy and stability of relationships, the "study" is a bunch of ****.

 

[opendebate]

Is fidelity in heterosexual couples lasting as long as a year really as low as 25% as it is with gay couples?

If it was the divorce rate would probably be lower.

 

[Paschendale]

Okay, gay men and women have relationships that aren't sexually exclusive more often than heterosexuals. So what?

Ps, "fidelity" does not necessarily refer to exclusivity. It refers to cheating. There is no mention of cheating. Merely a lack of exclusivity. Couples not desiring to be exclusive is very different than couples who do desire it betraying each others' trust. The former is the subject of the article, not the latter.

 

[chromium]

Anyway it shouldn't even matter. There will always be some who cheat on their significant other, and that's no justification for depriving everyone else of the right to marry, which without reading the article I'm sure is what they are trying to argue.

 

[cpwill]

"exclusivity" is one of the key underpinnings of marriage - which is why the poll was done, and why folks think it is relevant (to those with the "so what" question). It (if accurate - as Redress points out, there are methodological concerns) would rather undermine the argument that the SSM movement is not attempting to redefine marriage.

 

[CLAX1911]

Of course they aren't. I have been in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships they are different, one difference is that both people in a homosexual relationship are the same sex, men and women are different

 

[CLAX1911]

As for the family research council, they view everything through the Christian prism which means they don't do research for the sake of truth but for the in vogue political agenda of so called Christian right. I don't put it past them too simply through out data that goes against the in vogue political agenda of the so called Christian right.

It's kind of like the study of lung cancer related to cigarette smoking by the tobacco company. I just didn't trust it.

The shrinking political extreme right has invaded the lesser ends of Christianity taken it over and turns out into a political party complete with their own phony research centers.

Basically I don't believe their statists are accurate. I believe they made them up to give people who treat church as a political function crummy ammo to attempt to use against what they view as a political enemy.

If you want your statistics to be taken seriously link a reliable source. Not the "we will do anything to prove our interpretation of the bible, is right" source. No matter how they approach this issue it's always going to come up as a bad thing because they believe it is. They will prop up any data valid or not to support that, they are looking to confirm their beliefs and when you approach something from that angle ever thing you interpret will be supportive of that belief.



So when I here a knee jerk republican pain backed up by a republican shill organization masquerading as some bland outdated form of Christianity I tend to have misgivings about their motivation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Get back to me when you can actually respond to the data.

Get back to us when you can find data from a reliable source that doesn't have SCORES of methodology problems. Family Research Council ain't it and their reputation on gay issues is about as reliable as... hmmm... I can't think of an analogy bad enough that matches up with FRC's lack of reliability on gay issues. I mean these are the guys who published the false and completely debunked "gay agenda".

 

[CLAX1911]

This is the long and the short of it. If the only hope Christianity can offer gay people is heterosexuality, Christianity offers no hope to gay people.

Basically I take it as telling me "**** off, God doesn't want you here."

Even if these statistics are accurate, what difference do they make?

 

[Deuce]

"exclusivity" is one of the key underpinnings of marriage - which is why the poll was done, and why folks think it is relevant (to those with the "so what" question). It (if accurate - as Redress points out, there are methodological concerns) would rather undermine the argument that the SSM movement is not attempting to redefine marriage.

How many of the homosexual couples were married?