10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Anybody surprised that the authors of the studies Ben has been using are Christian fundy whackjobs, or that the studies have been mischaracterized by Christian fundy whackjobs?

Attack the ball, not the ball carrier.

At least you have the guts to provide substantial ammunition against the sources that I cited. Problem is that there are more citations, and we can keep going at this for a long time.

No need to get into the personal attacks.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And I asked two questions pertaining to freedom of conscience.

1. Conversion
2. Adopt beliefs over time.

This is what happens to things that are protected under freedom of conscience. And you have not addressed either question at all!

How is it a distortion to say that you have appealed to freedom of conscience?

You distorted my argument by saying that I was arguing that being gay is a religion!!

Therefore, your question about conversion is irrelevant, as well as adoption of beliefs over time.

Where conscience fits with my argument, however, is with the process of realizing you're gay, and choosing whether or not to come out of the closet and fully accepting yourself as a gay man.

[lord of the mark]

"It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5"

if the life expectancy of members of the Vegan society is greater than the life expectancy of People Eating Tasty Animals, that in itself is purely a descriptive fact. Its hard to see why its inappropriate in to use, however, in making the case that eating meat is unhealthy and should be discouraged. OTOH its hard to see how one would get from that to suggesting that meat eaters shouldnt get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

My argument is that these features apply to everything that is protected under freedom of conscience, which includes religion.

I just used religion to serve as an analogy, system of thought or philosophy would serve just as well.

Or even worldview.

But these two do not change. People can change their system of thought and world view. That's what I mean by conversion, and the term is applied to things beyond switching your religious beliefs. People talk about converting to Communism or atheism, because these are ways in which they view the world.

The second point is that you are not born with these ideas. You are taught them and gain understanding over time.

I'm not even saying you are wrong to say any of this! All I am saying is how do you square this with the assertion that being gay is somehow genetic and that you are born with it and it cannot change?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
People can change their system of thought and world view.

I think it would be better to say that people 'may' change their beliefs, instead of they 'can' change their beliefs. That being said, being gay is completely different from having a world view. You can't speak of them as being so similar, and that's Mr. Fun's point.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Problem is that there are more citations, and we can keep going at this for a long time.

It only goes for a long time if you keep bringing up studies that don't use proper methodology or quote them out of context. Try quoting something from an actual reputable source, IN CONTEXT AND WITH FULL FOLLOW UP, that backs up your assinine claim about the genetic link between being gay and being more susceptable to drug and alcohol abuse.

[Ben Kenobi]

Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor

Very true. However, when you have a specific segment of the population that has a disproportionate mortality rate, the question emerges as to why?

If these factors are general factors that apply across populations, then we should also expect to see similar drops over those populations. Yet we do not. Again the question of why.

With sexual transmitted diseases, the general argument is that the practices of gay men are different then those of other groups, including increased promiscuity. All of these are increased risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases across all groups of people and not only gay people.

So the study is correct. It is more about how you choose to live your life then about whether you desire to sleep with men or not.

[Arrian]

Attack the ball, not the ball carrier.

At least you have the guts to provide substantial ammunition against the sources that I cited. Problem is that there are more citations, and we can keep going at this for a long time.

I did both, Ben. But you see, the ball carrier's agenda is relevant. That cuts both ways, of course.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

It only goes for a long time if you keep bringing up studies that don't use proper methodology or quote them out of context. Try quoting something from an actual reputable source, IN CONTEXT AND WITH FULL FOLLOW UP, that backs up your assinine claim about the genetic link between being gay and being more susceptable to drug and alcohol abuse.

I am quoting them in context. The citations quote what the studies actually say, and not the press release accusing the other folks of 'misinterpreting' their results.

CYA.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yahbut if you want kids to be reared in stable households (ie ones with two adults, the same two adults) it has certain merits. Not that it insures stable households, or that theyre impossible without it.

As a single parent, I'll say that sometimes things are more stable when there is no marriage. I can't speak for gay households, but I imagine that a lot of them are stable. Marriages are often unstable. I'm just speaking from my own experience.

[Arrian]

With sexual transmitted diseases, the general argument is that the practices of gay men are different then those of other groups, including increased promiscuity.

Setting aside our other disagreements for just a second... HOW DOES ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE MAKE THIS WORSE??? If anything, one would reasonably expect it to improve the situation.

It is more about how you choose to live your life then about whether you desire to sleep with men or not.

Meaning that sleeping with lots of people whose history you don't know and not using condoms and stuff like that is a bad idea? Yeah, no ****, Sherlock!! And we're back to education again. That sort of thing goes for both groups. I just may be that because our society still frowns upon homosexuality that we do a piss poor job of communicating with that group. And, as noted by Hogg, circumstances have changed since the 1980s/early 1990s. Education and all that, you know.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Conclusion Obituaries in gay community newspapers do not provide a representative sampling of the community

This is your best argument by far Arrian. By far. Unlike that piece on the supposed 'biases' of the author of the study. I mean I could cite the source for the 10 percent of the population is gay, but that would mean attacking the holy figure of Kinsey.

Now, my question is this. How does one obtain a properly representative sample of gay men? It is impossible when gay men themselves have no criteria they use to determine who is gay and who is not.

It's the same thing with studies of Christians. Do you just count those who are baptised, or those who self-identify?

[Arrian]

So you concede that stats good enough to really drawn conclusions from don't exist? Yet you draw the conclusions anyway. I wonder why.

I mean I could cite the source for the 10 percent of the population is gay, but that would mean attacking the holy figure of Kinsey.

Huh? By the way, I have no position on what % of the pop is gay. Could be 10, could be 1... I don't give a ****.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Setting aside our other disagreements for just a second... HOW DOES ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE MAKE THIS WORSE??? If anything, one would reasonably expect it to improve the situation.

Same argument I had myself. Same words.

Problem with this argument is that you are assuming that the way in which gay men relate to each other is the same as for a husband and wife in marriage. Most of these 'committed relationships' are by no means monogamous. Marriage works in reducing promiscuity only if both partners agree to be faithful to each other, and that means having sex just with each other and no one else. Otherwise you are exponentially increasing your risk with each additional partner.

Secondly, promiscuity is only part of the troubles. Even if you had two faithful gay men together, you are still going to see the difficulties with alcohol abuse and drug abuse that need to be accounted.

Meaning that sleeping with lots of people whose history you don't know and not using condoms and stuff like that is a bad idea? Yeah, no ****, Sherlock!! And we're back to education again. That sort of thing goes for both groups. I just may be that because our society still frowns upon homosexuality that we do a piss poor job of communicating with that group. And, as noted by Hogg, circumstances have changed since the 1980s/early 1990s. Education and all that, you know.

I don't see any data from Hogg confirming that. If we wish to argue data, then you'd better show that in fact the death rates have decreased.

Secondly, there is a difference in death rates and incidence rates. When you have the inhibitor treatments that is going to drop your mortality rate even if the incidence remains the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you concede that stats good enough to really drawn conclusions from don't exist? Yet you draw the conclusions anyway. I wonder why.

That's how you do science. You never have all the information you need. So you report on the information that you do have, and try your best. You still have to draw your conclusions from your data even if you have your own caveats as to the accuracy.

If the source critiques for not having a representative sample, then I want to see gay people define themselves in such a manner that will be considered representative, so such studies can be properly done. Instead, the definition of who is gay and who is not remains nebulous. Unless this definition is clarified, then it is impossible to do any representative studies on gay people.

Huh? By the way, I have no position on what % of the pop is gay. Could be 10, could be 1... I don't give a ****.

Apologies, caught Mr. Fun's remark, and addressed that to you.