- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,746
- Reaction score
- 32,386
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's a point that cuts both ways.
It's just a word...
Which is why we should keep it properYou wouldn't improperly call a dudes penis a vagina because he says he's a woman would you? Definition is important, the moral aspects and social aspects to marriage are also important and in my opinion, should be upheld to a higher standard than what we currently have.
Which is why we should keep it properYou wouldn't improperly call a dudes penis a vagina because he says he's a woman would you? Definition is important, the moral aspects and social aspects to marriage are also important and in my opinion, should be upheld to a higher standard than what we currently have.
The only thing that seems to be stopping people from having kids is affluence, the more affluent a society gets, the less children they have, raising a child is expensive in our countries.
The notion that somehow gays marrying will discourage people from having kids is about as far removed from reality as a Micheal Jackson ressurection...
Good post rogue.
........Religion is another factor. Some of the most ardent conservatives are religious fundamentalists who believe they have been bidden by God to go forth and multiply. These conservatives, now overwhelmingly Republican, see large families as blessings, abortion as sacrilege, birth control as potentially sinful. Indeed people who attend church weekly are twice as likely as those who seldom attend to say their ideal family size is three or more children. (This "relentlessly pro-natal" orientation, Longman contended in a recent issue of the journal Foreign Policy, threatens a not-too-distant future in which zealous Christians and radical Muslims inherit the Earth and usher in "new Dark Ages").
Conversely, other influences depress the number of children born to liberals. Liberal women are statistically more likely to delay childbirth into later years than are conservative women, and they may also be more open to abortion, although the data is unclear. Gays and lesbians, who vote Democratic by a roughly 4-1 ratio, are much less likely to have children than heterosexuals. And some on the left advocate fewer children as "socially responsible" to lessen the toll on the planet's finite resources.....
What marriage means to you, doesn't mean the same thing to a crummy couple that married for money.
Doesn't mean the same thing to a Hindu...
Doesn't mean the same thing to a muslim...
Doesn't mean the same thing to a scientologist...
Doesn't mean the same thing to a gay man who marries a woman because he's in denial...
perhaps we should start screening everyone to make sure they fit your criteria on marriage approval.
A few hundred thousand years you say.
I take it, cultural anthropology isn't your thing.
Is it yours? Are you aware of any successful societies that promoted "homosexual marriages" as a viable cultural more?
The only thing that seems to be stopping people from having kids is affluence, the more affluent a society gets, the less children they have, raising a child is expensive in our countries.
The notion that somehow gays marrying will discourage people from having kids is about as far removed from reality as a Micheal Jackson ressurection...
Good post rogue.
Is it yours? Are you aware of any successful societies that promoted "homosexual marriages" as a viable cultural more?
Well, of the two of us, I'd say I am quite comfortable in the knowledge that at least one knows enough about the stuff to realize the state of mankind several hundred thousand years ago.
which is the statement I was responding to rather than the one you just asked.
Allright. Fair enough. So, at the risk of being a real pest, how bout my question? :mrgreen:
You know, I really don't understand why people freaking care so much. What is the motivation behind LGBT people not being able to form legal families. Just leave us alone to live our lives, and let us be treated equally. It won't affect you at all, but you're affecting me, please just get the **** over it.
.............Duration
A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first heterosexual marriages last ten years or longer, with 50 percent lasting twenty years or longer. The 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported slightly higher numbers, with 70.7 percent lasting ten years, 57.7 percent lasting twenty years or more.
However, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was one and a half years. According to a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." A 1995 survey by Partners Task Force for Gay And Lesbian Couples found that the average female relationships lasted over six years (6.6) and male relationships just over four years (4.2).
Fidelity
A nationally representative survey of 884 heterosexual men and 1,288 heterosexual women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.
The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' homosexual couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year." According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as "an act of oppression."
Safety
According to the U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs and "Intimate Partner Violence," the percentage of heterosexual wives abused is one-quarter of one percent (0.26); married heterosexual men, one-twentieth of one percent (0.05).
The same study revealed that 11.4 percent of women in lesbian relationships suffered abuse while 15.4 percent of men in gay relationships suffered abuse. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that 31 percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse. In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.
Parenting
Homosexual couples seeking to adopt children point to studies that children raised by gays and lesbians are no different than those raised by heterosexual couples. In fact, in 2002 the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that it was endorsing homosexual adoption.
However, sociology professors at the University of Southern California Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz report that "contrary to earlier assertions, children of same-sex parents exhibit significant [negative] differences when compared to children raised by heterosexual couples." David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. "We have allowed the politicization of this issue to erode our capacity to see clearly."
Both sides of the battle are seeking to interpret the data for their own agenda. However, the following statistics should concern all of us: A study in Adolescence found that children are sexually molested in 0.6 percent of heterosexual households. That's, obviously, 0.6 percent too many! However, 29 percent of adult children of homosexual couples report being sexually abused as young people. That's 48 times higher than sexual abuse occurring in heterosexual households!
Apples to . . .
Based on these statistics, comparing traditional, heterosexual marriage to homosexual unions is not just comparing apples to oranges, but apples to Oregon. From a simply statistical perspective, there are few correlations in the duration, fidelity, or safety of the two social groups........
Homosexuality was tolerated in precolonial Polynesia, and many Mahu formed bonds that lasted for years.
........as well as some native american tribes and several european societies over the ages. What none of them did, as far as I am aware, is confuse such pairings with marriage in those societies that developed such an institution.
Well, firstly, you make an excellent case for homosexual marriage. Marriage, as you statistics show, cause relationships to be more steady, long-term, and monogamous.
Secondly, you have committed the classic error of the anti-gay folks... misquoting Stacy and Bilbartz. That is NOT what their study shows. In fact, studies that have been done, overwhelmingly demonstrate that there is no difference in outcomes with children reared in straight households, verses those raised in gay households.
And lastly, the stats on sexual molestation are inaccurate. Firstly, the comment doesn't indicate WHO molested the children, just that they were molested. Secondly, all research into this information shows that children of homosexuals are NOT molested anymore often than those of heterosexuals... except studies that are anti-gay and have serious methodological flaws. But tell you what. Let's take a look at the study. Post links to all the information that you posted. Not just the blog that you got it from.
You are basing your position on a false premise. Answer this: what society has ever placed gay marriage as a social norm?
Pederasty and military training were intimately connected in Sparta, as in many other cities. The Spartans, claims Athanaeus, sacrificed to Eros before every battle: "Thus the Lacedaemonians offer preliminary sacrifices to Eros before the troops are drawn up in battle-line, because they think that their safe return and victory depend upon the friendship of the men drawn up." However, unlike other cities which stationed lovers side by side in battle to encourage each to fiercer efforts, Spartan youths were so well trained that they fought nobly regardless of where they were positioned. The lover was responsible for the boy's training. An anecdote relates the story of a Spartan magistrate who was fined by the city because his beloved had cried out while he was fighting, which was considered to be a sign that the young man was overly effeminate and had therefore not been properly educated by his distinguished lover. And while the ephors were lenient with a youth who committed a misdemeanor, they made sure to punish his lover, since it was his responsibility to watch and control his beloved.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Spartan_warriors_practise_homosexuality#ixzz19pshzqq4
I've heard this one before. Sorry, but I feel this is naive in the extreme. Being married doesn't make promiscuous people faithful.
I'm not anti-gay. I'm simply not a supporter of the concept of gay marriage. If you feel my source is wrong in it's assertion simply provide one that supports your contention. Then I'll provide another one that will support my contention. Then you will simply denigrate my source and provide another one supporting your contention. I'm ready. How bout you? :mrgreen:
See, denigrate my source. At least I provided one. You start. I'll follow up. :mrgreen:
Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.
The spartans. I should have thought you were aware of this?
Yet, you have no evidence of this. All of your suppositions are based on something that doesn't exist. You cannot compare straight marriage with gay relationships. That's like comparing apples and airplanes. That's why this entire line is invalid.
I will denigrate any source that has no validity. And will prove it's invalid for research methodological reasons, too. But let's try this. You want sources that show that children reared in households do as well as those in straight households? I can certainly provide sources for this.
An invalid source is not a source. Sorry. Post the links to the actual studies so we can take a look at them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?