10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

He* IS a Christian Fundy, Ben, and he's got a clear agenda that lines up with his Christian Fundy beliefs. That bears mentioning. Know your source, and all that.

True, but that does nothing to say that his claims are automatically wrong just because he's a Christian. Waste of your time to play the man and not the ball.

Setting that aside, allowing gays to marry will not make the health issues (there are, clearly, higher infection rates amongst gays, even after one adjusts for the problematic data set) worse. So it's a foolish thing to bring up when arguing against gay marriage.

Considering the point that I cited earlier that 'marriage' to gay men is different from how most folks consider 'marriage' in terms of both fidelity and commitment, then this assumption is by no means correct. If you wish to reduce the incidence of std transmission, then that means having one partner and sticking to one partner. But I'm sure Mr. Fun will be able to comment on the efforts within the gay community to addess these issues particularly with respect to AIDS.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Considering the point that I cited earlier that 'marriage' to gay men is different from how most folks consider 'marriage' in terms of both fidelity and commitment, then this assumption is by no means correct.

But your comments are NOT based on the concept of "marriage" but of living together. Two different things. A legal marriage "contract" would most likely increase fidelity and commitment just as it does for heterosexuals....

[Ben Kenobi]

In Canada there is marriage legislation federally and provincial legislation regarding solemnization of marriage. Being in a legally recognized marriage carries certain legally recognized rights and responsibilities.

The Charter has been interpreted to mean that one cannot discriminate ion the basis of sex including sexual orientation-- etc etc etc.

So the right of two people who wish to be married is statutory and conditional only on the proper fees and forms.

I won't disagree with you. However, one must note that we have not had a free vote according to conscience on this question. One also should remember that the government did not appeal any of the cases prevented before it, instead allowing the SCOC to trump parliamentary supremacy.

If you truly believe we are a democracy and ruled by parliament and not justices, then I am going to be interested to see what happens when the people reject gay marriage and parliament passes a bill undoing what the Liberal party has imposed. If we are ruled by parliament, then parliament's decision ought to be upheld, even when it rules against the SCOC.

Seriously BenK that was a silly question. If you wanted to get married, do you not believe that you would have legal remedies if someone tried to prevent it . . . and no its not enshrined in the Charter or anything but as the legislation here in Canada currently sits, there is a "right" to get married (subject only to finding a willing partner-- but frankly any inability to obtain such a partner does not infringe your rights

Actually, to be honest, I believe that by the time I am ready to get married, marriage will no longer be recognised by the government. We will have 'civil partnerships' or some other crap, but no 'marriages'.

There is no right to get married, you can want to get married all you like, but until you find someone who is willing to commit to you then you cannot get married. In fact, even if you argue that marriage is a contract, no one has the right to a contract, to impose a burden on someone else without their prior consent.

Now, if you believe we have a right to get married, why not a right to get married to as many people as we wish?

[Ben Kenobi]

You can have a slightly open mind and actually look for all the research out there if your going to attempt to draw a conclusion from it. I'm sure I could dig up some outdated research on any given topic and present it, but I'd look like an idiot if I was using it to draw a conclusion and didn't see if it had been updated or refuted. That's actually called good research, Ben - finding the opposing views and challenging them.

And you don't think that I can anticipate the arguments against a particular source or citation? I expected the earlier argument about a lack of representative source, which raises the question as to how can one obtain a representative source when there is no definitive agreement as to what constitutes a gay person?

Besides, I don't see the gay marriage proponents taking the time or effort to cite any sources in their favour, in buttressing their arguments with empirical evidence.

So just for the hell of it, you quoted research you knew was dubious? Gotcha.

No, I rebutted the point about a representative source. You use the research available.

Found on a selective search to support your bias.

I don't need to wade through anything. You made an outlandish claim, you should be able to back it up. You already claim you did to boot:

Yes, I have and the worst that comes out is the author of the source claiming 'misrepresentation', and the horrible fact that they are all Christians! The horror!

Are there any more bald-faced lies you'd like to tell?

Go back and read Kontiki. I'm tired of saying something and having no one read what I have already answered. The source for my argument that gay people suffer from substantially higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse has already been cited.

Now as to a genetic link, I already answered that question. You are the only one who has asserted that I ever claimed a genetic link between the two, when all I said is these are the studies that show a link, but not necessarily a genetic basis.

[Arrian]

If you wish to reduce the incidence of std transmission, then that means having one partner and sticking to one partner.

Absolutely. The way to do this, however, is not to tell gays to not be gay.

Considering the point that I cited earlier that 'marriage' to gay men is different from how most folks consider 'marriage' in terms of both fidelity and commitment

Did you miss the part where we all tore apart the "study" you cited, because it used a ridiculous data set?? Gay people who want to get married want to formalize long-term one-on-one relationships they're already in, for ****'s sake!

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

But BenK he didn't provide new cites, he merely provided evidence that one of your sources is considered disreputable and uses silly methodology while your other source themselves have distance themselves from any interpretation that looks like what you said they said.

Read what I said. I said I can continue citing other sources Flubber, not that he cited additional sources.

Would you like me to continue this farce where I'm the only one who bothers to provide substantiation for his claims?

[Arrian]

Your "substantiation" is a bunch of "studies" conducted by people who are actively seeking for ways to make homosexuality look bad, Ben. It's nuts.

But ok, after lunch I'll do some more googling. It won't make a damn bit of difference, 'cause you've made up your mind. After all, no matter what I come up with, the Bible says gays are bad.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Absolutely. The way to do this, however, is not to tell gays to not be gay.

Where have I told gay people not to be gay? Do you stop being gay when you aren't having sex with men?

Did you miss the part where we all tore apart the "study" you cited, because it used a ridiculous data set?? Gay people who want to get married want to formalize long-term one-on-one relationships they're already in, for ****'s sake!

Umm, how about you cut me some slack. I am systematically replying to each post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just curious but what are "circuit parties"???-- Are they like heterosexual "swinger parties" since you would get similar numbers for hetero couples at swinger parties.

Even if these "circuit parties " are tamer, they still miss out on the many long term couples that don't go out to many parties or spend much time on "the gay scene"-- Why?? because like most comfortably committed couples, they go to work, contribute to society , raise their family and frankly don't go to many parties other than small evenst with close friends. . . .

I know couples like that ( one's been together for 15 years since their early 20s and the others been together over 20+ years since their mid 30s)-- But you wouldn't find them at anything known as a circuit party so they won't get factored into such "statistics"

Granted, however, both of you neglected to account for the very next sentence...

they claimed to have a "primary partner." Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners "had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend

For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.

And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.

Three different studies here.

The first is from the circuit party, the other two are not. I'm sorry if that wasn't apparent from the citation, but if you read carefully it becomes apparent.

So what do you folks make of the second two claims?

And first of all, you cannot assess 'committed relationships' other then through self-identification which has it's own inherent bias.

[Arrian]

Where have I told gay people not to be gay? Do you stop being gay when you aren't having sex with men?

You can think gay thoughts, but you can't have sex! It's for your own good, you know. Of course, impure thoughts are also sinful, so we'll have to work on that too.

What I'm trying to explain to you, Ben, is that you don't have to stop gay sex in order to improve the STD situation. You have to get the same message through that you need to get to the hetero people: sleeping around, not using condoms, not getting tested/insisting on testing for your partner... these things can get you killed.

Furthermore, as I've repeatedly stated, gay marriage can only help. Notwithstanding the idiotic study that used as its sample a bunch of people attending gay swinger parties (!!), I don't buy this "gays don't see marriage as a real committment" bull****. The gays who want to get married want to get married for the same reasons any of us do, Ben. To share their lives, and to have it formalized under the law. Even to have kids (be it via art.insem, or adoption).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The fact is that there aren't going to be any stats that are germane to the argument you're making, because we need stats on gay marriages, which have been disallowed nearly everywhere until very recently.

The dataset doesn't exist.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmmmm... I wonder how this would compare to non married couples... Because think of it. "Maybe" the fact that people are "married" lowers the chance that you will stray from your partner (I said lower, not stop it)... so... maybe the fact that marriage is denied to gays is a primary cause why these types of percentages exist... and MAYBE if gays were allowed to "officially get married" we would see numbers that were compatable with heterosexual married couples

Excellent question. The numbers that I highlighted make the argument for me. How many folks who have been steady for a year would have cheated on their partners? 66%?

I've heard BK state on many occassions that the simple fact of marriage forces people to work through their issues instead of walking away from the problems... Gays aren't offered that "crutch" at the moment

It's a reasonable argument, however the sword has two edges. I can make the argument that you are not comparing apples to oranges since the pool of unmarried folks in a 'committed relationship' automatically excludes the proportion that are most likely to get married and stay married. Those folks we'd already see married and not in a 'committed relationship', whereas you'd have the most committed gay folks in one pool together.

Secondly, one of the reasons why couples stay together and work out their problems is because of the children that they have. Wouldn't you say this is true ming?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is absolutely not true. It's a civil rights issue. Did the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act coerce people into treating blacks better? No, of course not. Nor was that the point. The push for gay marriage is a rights issue, and as such it is definitely teh provence of government.

Why is it a rights issue? Is there a right to be married? The state has legitimate reasons to restrict marriage. Look at some of the people they do not allow to get married, is it discrimination that you have to be a certain age, and that you can't get married to your sister or brother?

(Incidently, the real problem here is that "marriage," as a term, is alone in being used to describe both a civil and a religious institution. The real solution is to just let religion have "marriage," and to use "civil union" for all state-sanctioned partnerships. If you married in a church, they could issue you a marriage certificate, but it would count for about as little as your baptismal certificate does. It would be your government issued Certificate of Civil Union -- like your government-issued Birth Certificate -- that actually mattered. That's the fix.)

So do away with marriage, the very right that folks are clamouring for!

Shows how much of a rights issue this is. This is a benefits issue, which is why you don't mind doing away with marriage altogether so long as the same benefits are attached to something else.

[Arrian]

Excellent question. The numbers that I highlighted make the argument for me.

No, they really don't. These aren't figures about married people cheating on their spouses. These are figures on unmarried people in the first year of a relationship.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

BK: I don't understand. You're pro-life. You're favourable to a natalist policy. Why do you oppose of gay couples having children? Why are you opposed to life and populousness like that?