10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Arrian]

Most of these 'committed relationships' are by no means monogamous.

You base this on what?

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.

And we disagree on the root cause of the statistics you have cited. I don't think that merely being gay makes you more prone to those things. I mean, seriously, you cannot imagine that a gay person who had to "stay in the closet" or face ostricization for years (maybe their whole life) might have some issues, and it's not his "gayness" that is to blame?

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.

First part... I'm pretty sure those numbers are out there, but if you insist I'll go look 'em up. Second - granted, death rate is the wrong thing to look at. Incidence is the right stat to evaluate.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You base this on what?

Gay men's sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of "monogamy without fidelity." Astudy of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, 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.

Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.

And we disagree on the root cause of the statistics you have cited. I don't think that merely being gay makes you more prone to those things. I mean, seriously, you cannot imagine that a gay person who had to "stay in the closet" or face ostricization for years (maybe their whole life) wouldn't have some issues?

No doubt they would. However we all have issues to deal with, why is it we see higher rates of abuse even among those who are no longer in the closet?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

No, you quoted old research but you ignored the follow up by the same researchers on the same research that explicitly states that the numbers would be much better now if the study was conducted again. You also ignored the criticism leveled at their methodology which was rather obvious to most anyone who looked at it.

Willfully or not, you cherry picked data which the authors themselves acknowledge would have changed if conducted a few years later.

You still have yet to quote something that says that there's a genetic link between homosexuality and greater susceptence to drug and alcohol abuse.

[Arrian]

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.

Where are the caveats from you, or from the fundies you like to cite? Naw, Ben, this isn't "the way you do science." This is using stats to justify a worldview.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

No, you quoted old research but you ignored the follow up by the same researchers on the same research that explicitly states that the numbers would be much better now if the study was conducted again.

Ignored? How could I have known that the authors had done the study more recently? Look, I find the sources, I cite the sources, and I go from there. I've ignored nothing.

You also ignored the criticism leveled at their methodology which was rather obvious to most anyone who looked at it.

Of a non-representative sample? Yeah, I was waiting for that argument to be charged against the research. Pleased to see Arrian had the balls to find stuff, but I wasn't surprised to see their critique.

Willfully or not, you cherry picked data which the authors themselves acknowledge would have changed if conducted a few years later.

Cherry picked? You make it sound like I had both sources in front of me and cited only the one that I liked. Hardly. I cited the evidence I found.

You still have yet to quote something that says that there's a genetic link between homosexuality and greater susceptence to drug and alcohol abuse.

I already said that you can wade through the literature. There isn't a consensus on the heritability of homosexuality, let alone a predisposition to alcoholism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Naw, Ben, this isn't "the way you do science." This is using stats to justify a worldview.

The caveats are there, and I cited them. The authors consider both sides and say that they cannot ignore this connection.

Certainly a much more scientific approach then calling one author a 'Christian fundy' and leaving it at that.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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?

Ok, this is a fair question.

First, I can use the conscience argument when I hypothetically accept at face-value, for sake of argument, the false claim that sexual orientation is a choice.

The reason I use this approach, is because people who argue that sexual orientation is a choice, have the mistaken presumption that if they can convince people it's a choice, then in turn, they can morally and legally justify discrimination against gays.

But by my using the conscience argument, I deconstruct this fallacious argument by pointing out that even if given that sexual orientation is a choice, it does not follow that we can justly discriminate against gays.


Secondly, I can still use the conscience argument even with the valid claim that sexual orientation is a not a choice. The reasoning behind this, is that, as I have already said, the process of a person realizing that he is gay and whether he chooses to accept himself as a gay man is part of his own conscience. So in of itself, his sexual orientation is not a choice, but he does have a choice in how to deal with his sexual orientation identity.

[Arrian]

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.

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.

-Arrian

* Well, actually, more than one of them are (all three authors of one of your cited studies).

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



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

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.


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 )

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

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.

SO IMHO you are left with no sources

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ignored? How could I have known that the authors had done the study more recently? Look, I find the sources, I cite the sources, and I go from there. I've ignored nothing.

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.

Of a non-representative sample? Yeah, I was waiting for that argument to be charged against the research. Pleased to see Arrian had the balls to find stuff, but I wasn't surprised to see their critique.

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

Cherry picked? You make it sound like I had both sources in front of me and cited only the one that I liked. Hardly. I cited the evidence I found.

Found on a selective search to support your bias.

I already said that you can wade through the literature. There isn't a consensus on the heritability of homosexuality, let alone a predisposition to alcoholism.

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:

Originally posted by Kontiki
You have made a bald-faced assertion that being gay in and of itself makes one more susceptable to drug and alcohol addiction. I want to see you back that up.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My post to Flubber. Perhaps you should go and read what I cited.

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

[Arrian]

edit: nevermind

[Flubber]

Article quote Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Gay men's sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of "monogamy without fidelity." Astudy of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, 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.

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"

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi







No doubt they would. However we all have issues to deal with, why is it we see higher rates of abuse even among those who are no longer in the closet?

Addiction or habit-- Two possibilities there. Also the fact that a person is out of the closet does not mean they have been accepted by their family and friends. Those scars may continue

[Arrian]

"A study of gay men attending circuit parties."

Yeah, no sample problems there! Clearly a representative sample of gay people!

-Arrian