Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Ben Kenobi]

Where's the statistics for men?

Good question. Do you really believe that men are abused more by women then they are by other men?

The only one that was controversial is the one for women, and this study shows it's not the case.

That very article has an interesting disclaimer for you:

Disclaim all they want, the stats still stand.

If they say that the samples are small and unrepresentative then the conclusion is simply that they do not know whether abuse is as great or little. They cannot conclude that with larger samples the abuse would go down, it might just as easily go up.

All it does is show that the studies were conducted by those who were biased in favour of homosexuals, and they still found evidence that they are substantially more violent.

Again you display tremendous dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity.

How so? I had to quote the article twice before you even bothered to read it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Argg. You quoted him and I was forced to look at it.

Ben, you incredible ****wit, those statistics are for the lifetime prevalence of cohabitant abuse against women who have ever cohabited with women. Right in your ****ing link it says that the great majority of cohabitant abuse on women have ever cohabited with women was perpetrated by previous male partners.

In other words, women who are abused by men are more likely to become lesbians. Is this supposed to be some kind of revelation? You ****wit.

Furthermore, a look at actual studies shows that, indeed, same-sex domestic abuse rates are the same as heterosexual ones, which is to be expected:

http://www.purpleslurple.net/ps.php?theurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040724085247/http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/glbtdv/glbtdv.html#purp557

(561) Less than a dozen academic studies have examined the prevalence of battering among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. All have focused on lesbians and gay men, and most have not been published. Because these studies are exploratory, tend to use small samples, and tend not to use random sampling techniques, we can not draw firm conclusions from them. Taken together, however, their findings suggest a domestic violence prevalence rate between 25 and 33%, comparable to the findings on prevalence in heterosexual couples ( Brand and Kidd, 1986, ; Koss, 1990 ; Lockhart, White, Causby, and Isaac, 1994 ; Harms, 1995 ).

BK - fool or liar, which is it to be?

[KrazyHorse]

Thank you. That was the statistic I was looking for. Couldn't find it in the link Ben posted.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

How so? I had to quote the article twice before you even bothered to read it.

Because the article clearly contradicts your claim of what the article says.

You intentionally misrepresented the article's results. When I quote the ACTUAL results, it supports MY assertion, not YOURS.

You are a terrible person, genuinely. Dishonest with zero integrity. Shame on you, really.

[Ben Kenobi]

He provides the same benefits. He's my life partner. Not sure what you do not comprehend?

Why isn't he your husband, as opposed to your wife?

No, since November 1999. Can you do that math?

I've not been here that long.

You laugh, but I know it. I've got a sixth sense for this thing. If anything you're actually gay. You're a Ted Haggard type.

Based on what evidence? You better get your gaydar in for a tuneup.

Additionally, your casual assertion that I should just choose to marry a woman implies you don't see why this is not possible. The implications from there should be obvious.

You've dated women before. You used to claim you were bi. So why are you saying that you couldn't choose to marry a woman? I call bull****.

Physically, yes.

Only physically? Do you believe that they think the same way?

I believe every person, as a person, is unique and can be loved. A life partner does not need to have opposite genitalia to you to provide a loving, supportive spouse that makes you happy.

Oh sure, my granny makes me happy too.

I don't expect you to understand what love is, but you should at least make an effort. Love is not something exclusive to genitalia...

So you believe if you cut your **** off that you are a woman. Thank you Asher.

[KrazyHorse]

Ben, stop whining about gay marriage and accept that you just need a good, healthy dose of man-meat.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why isn't he your husband, as opposed to your wife?

Oh my GOD YOU ARE STUPID.

I didn't say he was my wife, I said he provided the same benefits of a wife -- that is to say, he is my spouse and life-partner. A wife gives me nothing more but a higher tampon bill.

Based on what evidence? You better get your gaydar in for a tuneup.

Exhibit A: Your hatred of gays.
Exhibit B: How you will stop at NOTHING to convince yourself that gay is not an option.

You've dated women before. You used to claim you were bi. So why are you saying that you couldn't choose to marry a woman? I call bull****.

It's textbook phased coming out. It takes a lot of gumption and introspection to identify as gay eventually. No one wants or chooses this. I tried to convince myself I was bi -- likely how you convince yourself now you are straight -- and I dated women a bit and had sex with one woman. It was after this, after I tried women, that I realized and accepted I was gay. I've been much, much happier ever since.

The bisexual step is common, it's why in the gay community people laugh when someone says they're bi. It's a stepping stone on the road of acceptance for most people.

Only physically? Do you believe that they think the same way?

Not all men think the same way, not all women think the same way. And how one thinks does not matter when it comes to pairing up spouses...

So you believe if you cut your **** off that you are a woman. Thank you Asher.

I take it you have no idea how quickly one can legally and physically change their sex with surgery and hormone therapy.

[Ming]

Asher... no need to make personal attacks. Attack his arguments instead... and it's OH SO EASY.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously... no personal attacks.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Asher... no need to make personal attacks. Attack his arguments instead... and it's OH SO EASY.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously... no personal attacks.

It's so hard to resist. I'd genuinely smack the man if he was sitting across from me in person.

But I will try, because I love you, Ming.

[Krill]

The problem is that BK is too think to realise why he is wrong. He's like a rabid dog, he just needs putting down. And that is an analogy, not a personal attack. The personal attack is teh first bit.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
I didn't say he was my wife, I said he provided the same benefits of a wife -- that is to say, he is my spouse and life-partner. A wife gives me nothing more but a higher tampon bill.

And toilet paper bills.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Krill
The problem is that BK is too think to realise why he is wrong

No, he's simply too intellectually dishonest to do so.

[Krill]

I was trying to be nice.

[Ming]

Oh... and some real proof on just how bad foster care is.

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster04.htm

It's a long piece that links to MANY different pieces of research...

And in just the opening.

One of the most comprehensive surveys of abuse in foster care was conducted in conjunction with a Baltimore lawsuit. Trudy Festinger, head of the Department of Research at the New York University School of Social Work, determined that over 28 per cent of the children in state care had been abused while in the system.

For the safety and sake of the children, we need to get them out of state care. Ben, please show man ANY study that shows Gay couples are 28% more likely to abuse their adoptive children. We must save the children. And God bless ANY gay couple that wants to adopt a child and get them out of the system.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody has ever said it's the same... but love is not something that can only happen between a man and a woman.

Oh sure. I love my dog too. Just because you love someone doesn't mean that should be called marriage.

It means spending my life together with the person that I love. And that state gives us rights to protect our union of love.

Not woman? It doesn't matter to you that your wife is a woman?

No... the greater suffering is leaving children in the most abusive situation... which is state care.

You've said that a few times. Any evidence?

And again... there is a risk no matter what family adopts, and you have to show RELIABLE research showning any SIGNIFICANT difference. Remember, there is a screaning process... and potentionally bad situations, straight or gay, can be weeded out.

I'm saying it's been shown that there is a difference. Whether you consider it significant, the truth is that you are willing to overlook the difference at the cost of the welfare of the child. It's like saying you'd go with the lesser option because you don't believe that these children can do better. I think they can, and that we shouldn't place children with families that are much more likely to split up and suffer abuse.

It is the repsonsibility of the agency to find loving homes... And the kids have a RIGHT to get out of the most abusive situation... state care.

Thank you. So it's irrelevant saying that the child should make the decision. It's the responsibility of the agency, not the child to screen.

More children stay in state care than are adopted. They get a life of hell until they can leave legally. The chance of an abusive adoptive family is FAR less than state care abuse. If you are a single white baby, you get adopted. If you are an older child, the chances of adoption are slim.

So that tells me the issue isn't that there are families to adopt but that the system doesn't do it's job to match these children up. I see it all the time that the agency won't permit adoptions of black children by white parents. Why do they bar these families if the goal is to get the kids in the best situation possible.

The only thing I see is that the welfare of the children is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the desires of those who wish to adopt. It's like one stop shopping, if anyone is rejected that means their rights have been violated.

Look at the stats... the kids don't have a chance of being adopted. Again, white babies... high chance.

Then we should permit black babies to be adopted by white parents.

Way too many kids stay in state care until they turn of age. You can claim we need more families to "step up" yet you don't want gay couples to be the ones stepping up.

By numbers, it's like saying adding one out of a hundred will change the situation. It's not worth the increased risk of abuse for little if any gain. You are also assuming that an agency that 'broadens' their base is going to retain the rest of the people. I see it happening, and this is what happened so far that unless agencies cater to gays, they are shut down.

How is that in the best interest of the children to shut down adoption agencies?

There is only a SLIM chance of that lifetime of abuse, which is about the same between gay or hetero couples.
The chance is FAR higher in state care... and it is very seldom temporary.

It's not about the same, it's significantly higher. Plus you are looking at the risk of breakup being higher.

Eliminating potential adoptive parents simply because they are gay is the horrible idea. Too many kids are stuck in state care... and to deny them a chance at happiness simply because a couple is gay is doing them a big disservice and doing them more harm.

Protecting them from abuse is more important. We shouldn't place children in a situation where they could be abused just because those are the only options at present. The system should be lifting barriers that prevent white parents from adopting black babies.

Nope... by percentages, it's clergy.

Any source for that?

So let's keep religion away from all children. Using your logic, it would be criminal to expose them such a high risk of potential trouble

It doesn't follow. Ming, your children spend far more time with public school teachers and they are at a much higher risk of abuse. I don't see why you would want to keep religion from children, if all you have to do to prevent abuse is to make sure your children are not alone with the priest.