10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll consider that if they ban marriage between people over 60 and require an affidvit of intent to reproduce.

ben why are we permitting straight marriages with no guarantee they will be long term??

They can derive longterm benefits without necessarily lasting a long time. You are the one who inserted that requirement saying only 'long-term' gay marriages are beneficial to society.

Perhaps you should answer the question.

As for this 'affadavit to reproduce', it is unenforceable. The best way to say that marriage provides a benefit to society is to encourage young men and young women to get married to each other. Gay marriage acts contrary to that intention.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're argument that gay marriage is an overall cost to society is weak. Society benefits greatly when people have true freedom of choice. That is, making the choices that they prefer isn't 'taxed' in anyway, and they receive the same benefits as others who make similar personal choices.

What benefits does gay marriage provide to society that cannot also be provided through other means already existing?

I've already stated one for marriage between a man and a woman, and I'd like to see some for gay marriage.

[Arrian]

38% of gay men and 31% of the lesbians admitted having been physically attacked during the preceding five years, with the rates for heterosexual men and women once again being proportionately lower, despite their much larger representation in the population. Lesbians were the group reporting the highest rates of actual physical harm and/or bullying behavior at the hands of another.

I suppose this is meant to support your contention that the "gay lifestyle" is dangerous and ought not to be encouraged, eh? Because bigotted *******s like to beat up gays.

Homosexual men are less likely than heterosexual to be involved in a steady relationship with one partner (48.4% to 38.9%), with the divergence in the statistic for women being considerably smaller (37.5% for lesbians, 35.7% for heterosexual women). Both gay men and women were found to live alone more often than the straight respondents.

LotM addressed this pretty well.

As for the rest, I may decide to do some googling from home tonight to find some stats of my own, but right now no way jose. And no promises, since once I'm home I could play Civ. Or talk to my wife

-Arrian

[Arrian]

First off, you're the one hung up on "societal benifits." We're not. We're arguing that it's more about rights.

Societal benifit is secondary to me, and again since your argument is about childbearing and many hetero marriages do not result in children, your argument fails. One could simply provide societal benifits specifically focused on child bearing (and adoption, IMO) and achieve your aim even more effectively.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


My post to Flubber. Perhaps you should go and read what I cited.

Sorry, I must have missed the part where they concluded the causation was simply being gay and that there were no other factors in play. Perhaps you can quote it for everyone's benefit?

[Arrian]

I have cited a study that says the way in which gay people choose to live affects their health.

No. You cited statistics. You interpreted those statistics and concluded what you've stated above. One can interpret them differently, however.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What benefits does gay marriage provide to society that cannot also be provided through other means already existing?

The benefit is freedom of choice. People get what they each want. I'm not talking about economics here. Not everything has a dollar value.

[Arrian]

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that Ben is against gay marriage out of heartfelt concern for the health of gays?

-Arrian

[Guynemer]

No.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that Ben is against gay marriage out of heartfelt concern for the health of gays?

-Arrian

I believe that he's concerned for gays.

[Ben Kenobi]

Consider worker and warrior bees, one cares for the young within the hive while the other defends the hive from attack. Two duties that appear unrelated, but two duties that help propagate the species even though neither procreates. Homosexuality and low libido result in more unattached adults who are less likely to procreate, if at all. Is there an evolutionary advantage to this "strategy"? Wouldn't evolution give us all strong heterosexual sex drives so we all can procreate until the cows come home? Well, no... evolution has seen fit to leave certain percentages of the population "free" to help propagate the species in other ways not involving procreation.

It's an intriguing argument, but don't we tend to set aside lots of young men so that we have enough folks to fight in war? And what about lesbians?

What 2 alternative explanations? I cited one explanation, evolution has rewarded species that have plenty of unattached adults to help raise the young of other members of the species. The fact homosexuality and low libido appear unrelated does not mean both dont result in more available adults for child rearing.

No, but since we see folks with low libido, they seem to explain this phenomenon much better then to explain gay men.

If there are homosexual men who dont father children, those men are still available to help raise the children of others. The same is true regardless of the reason an adult does not procreate, be it low libido or some other reason.

But few men are put in that position where they are raising the kids of others, be they gay or straight. If it was a part of our society, then we should expect to see exactly what you see here, but we don't. I should know, I used to work as a babysitter (had to take care of both my younger brothers), and it's not easy to get many jobs when you are a guy.

But animals (and us) do not have a natural desire to propagate the species, some species limit procreation to a select few while others have the majority procreating. You're confusing species with the individual members of species who may have different "duties". How many bees procreate? Not many, most of the bees are destined to gather resources, care for the young or provide defense for the hive. Bees are a very good example of the helper phenomenon...

True, but I'm also poaching one of the bedrock principles of darwinism. There are exceptions to this argument, but they all pose significant difficulties to his theory. Bees, and some other insects also share this quality, yet in others we see that animals do have this drive to reproduce.

But we cannot accept that principle, the species propagates the species while individual members of the species serve more specialised roles that may not include procreation. The overall effect of combining all these specialised roles propagates the species, but that does not mean every member of the species procreates. Worker bees dont procreate, are they un-natural?

No they aren't. Which is why they give Darwin all sorts of headaches, when you are trying to explain how traits get passed on, and how this whole 'helper' thesis emerged in the first place.

I've actually seen an excellent argument in favour of this thesis for human society. The only difficulty is that they ascribed the support to celibate nuns and not gay men.

Assembly was about petitioning gov't for redress or to make grievances known to those who govern and was a result of monarchs suppressing critics and the unruly masses pissed off at the King and his court. The right to marry stems from our individual liberty, the right to make contracts.

Then why didn't we see the argument for marriage in the Constitution arguing that marriage was subject to freedom of association? From what I can tell, they recognised that marriage existed prior and outside of the constitution, and that while a government might acknowledge marriage, it could not determine the content of marriage.

In fact, I see more arguments wrt to conscience as we see Mr. Fun arguing here. It was the same argument made by the folks in Utah who challenged the ban on polygamy.

[Ben Kenobi]

One could simply provide societal benifits specifically focused on child bearing (and adoption, IMO) and achieve your aim even more effectively.

That's a good point, but it seems to ignore the blunt fact that you can't take care of the kids until you make the kids. And that's part of what marriage is very good at doing.

[Arrian]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

The Cameron Group's "Gay Obituary" Study

Cameron, Playfair, and Wellum (1994) counted obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.

Their conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.

Death Notices and Obituaries Most city newspapers include a section containing death notices for community residents. These notices – which can carry a small fee for printing – typically list the name, age, address, and survivors of the deceased, along with information about funeral or memorial services. Funeral directors often assist the loved ones of the deceased in submitting such notices. Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased.

Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.

Consequently, many gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries.

gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community

gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)

gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).
An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

Internal Inconsistencies The inadequacy of the Cameron group's approach is evident from internal inconsistencies within their own data. Compare the data about lesbians reported in their obituary study, for example, to data from their so-called national survey.
In their obituary study, the Cameron group claimed that the average lesbian life-span is similar to that of gay men who do not have AIDS ("under 50 years" versus "mid-40s," respectively). But if this is true, and if obituaries are indeed a valid source for this type of data, the ratio of gay male obituaries to lesbian obituaries should be about the same as the ratio of gay men to lesbians in the population.

From their survey data, the Cameron group has claimed to know the number of gay men and lesbians in the population. If we believed their numbers, we would set the ratio of gay men-to-lesbians at about 1.6-to-1 (or approximately 2.6-to-1 if bisexuals are omitted).

But the ratio of gay male-to-lesbian obituaries in the Cameron group's study is quite different – approximately 6-to-1 if AIDS and violent deaths are excluded, 32-to-1 if they are included.

Thus, at least one data set has to be wrong. Either the obituaries data do not include a representative sample of lesbians, or the Cameron group's population estimates based on their survey data are invalid.

An observer with training in research methodology would most likely conclude that both sets of data are fatally flawed.

This example is provided as simply one illustration of the flaws in the Cameron group's methods.



Conclusion Obituaries in gay community newspapers do not provide a representative sampling of the community. This is evident in the fact that only only 2% of the Cameron group's obituaries were for lesbians. Moreover, community newspapers tend overwhelmingly to report deaths due to AIDS (only 11% of Cameron's gay male obituaries were not related to AIDS). In addition, community newspapers tend not to print obituaries for people who are not actively involved in the local gay community, those who are in the closet, and those whose loved ones simply don't submit an obituary to a local gay newspaper.
The Cameron group's gay obituary study reports many numbers and statistics. However, they are absolutely worthless for estimating the life expectancy of gay men and lesbians.



Postscript In a 1997 column in the Weekly Standard, former Secretary of Education William Bennett referred to the findings of Cameron et al.'s obituary study, although he did not cite Cameron by name. He again referred to Cameron's conclusion about the truncated life span of homosexuals in an appearance on ABC's "This Week" program.
In 1998, after Andrew Sullivan wrote an article challenging the statistic, Bennett wrote in a letter to the New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4): "Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years."



References Bennett, W.J. (1997, November 24). Clinton, gays, and the truth. Weekly Standard, page 13.
Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., & Wellum, S. (1994). The longevity of homosexuals: Before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega, 29, 249-272.

Sullivan, A. (1998, January 5). False Bennett: Gay bashing by the numbers. New Republic, page 15.

I've started plugging in the names of the authors of Ben's studies. The results so far have been pretty predictable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
First off, you're the one hung up on "societal benifits." We're not. We're arguing that it's more about rights.

i have trouble with the rights argument. It tends to get to "gays are entitled to get married, just like straights" and "well gay men are allowed to marry women - being allowed to marry someone of the same sex isnt extending a right, its changing the definition of what its a right to" and tend to get to obscure philisophical twisitngs. Perhaps why its so popular an arguement on the web.

To me it IS about social benefits, which I tend to think lean TOWARDS gay marriage - for the same reason being married is good for straights, whether they have kids or not (plus the real suffering of folks denied next of kin rights at death beds, which is whats really made straight people sit up and take notice in recent years - versus the Burkean counter argument - simply that messing around with an institution thats been around for a couple of thousand years is inherently dangerous (we didnt make the watch, we dont know exactly what will happen when we adjust one spring) which argues for cautious change. Exactly what form that cautious change should take is a question of debate.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the rest, I may decide to do some googling from home tonight to find some stats of my own, but right now no way jose. And no promises, since once I'm home I could play Civ. Or talk to my wife

Yeah, why bother arguing with me here when you can have fun with the wife.

As for the argument from rights, where is there a right to be married?