Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Tycho was persecuted?

Ben, you should really be careful about who you claim as evidence of your fantasies

[Elok]

Originally posted by Asher
Anyone who associates with you is not a rational person.

Arguing with him doesn't count as "associating?"

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Anyways I've never been attracted at all to men

riiight

[Asher]

Except for that one time, at Jesus camp...

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ok, look at it this way.

It's similar to grade inflation. If every relationship is recognised as being 'marriage', then 'marriage' loses it's meaning. If everyone in the class is guaranteed an A, irrespective of the quality of their work, then the A is worthless.

The fact that marriage discriminates is not a bad thing, but essential to the concept. There are a great many of heterosexual relationships which do not meet the grade, should we recognise them as marriage?

And there are a great many heterosexual relationships that get the benefit of the term "marriage".

In that case, isn't it more like undeserved know-nothings who get grandfathered in? Like legacy attendees of Yale?

[Asher]

I'm more amused by the fact that Ben Kenobi views marriage as a competition. If there's someone that doesn't deserve marriage, it's him. He truly has no idea what it's about.

[Zevico]

1. I think we can agree that the State confers benefits and conveniences people who register their marriages. I would also add that the State also allows those couples resort to courts of law at the termination of their relationships. So in all there are 3 issues (and many sub-issues) to consider--benefits, conveniences, and divorce law. For the moment let us try to confine our discussion to the issue of adoption and conception of children by homosexuals with the assistance of the state.

-Child Bearing and Adoption---Ben Kenobi's Contention and the evidence he cited-

2. BK submits that men engaged in homosexual relationships as well as women engaged in homosexual relationships should not be permitted to adopt or bear children with the assistance of the State [their ability to do so otherwise being left unquestioned for the purpose of this discussion].
3. For the purpose of this discussion, Ben Kenobi submitted a link to a certain paper, published by the US Department of Justice in 2000. The paper is entitled 'Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence.' It deals with heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. It is available here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

4. Ben Kenobi relies upon part of this document as evidence to support his contention. He quotes that document (at page 30) as stating that:

One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.

5. In sum, BK's contention is that lesbian couples should not be permitted to receive the assistance or recognition of the State in adopting children (and presumably conceiving them as well). The basis of this argument is that, statistically speaking, lesbian couples are more violent towards one another than are heterosexual couples. As such, State adoption agencies ought to automatically and without review of their particular circumstances, deny lesbian couples the ability to adopt children from the State.

-Response-

6. I do not find this contention to be convincing. The evidence upon which it is based is flawed and, by the admission of the authors of the paper itself, entirely unreliable in so far as it relates to the making of a generalisation about the entirety of the gay community. [Please try to be more careful when citing evidence, Ben Kenobi.]
7. The very next paragraph of the document Ben Kenobi cited reads:

At first glance, these findings suggest that both male and female same-sex couples experience more intimate partner violence than do opposite sex couples. However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender produced some interesting findings: 30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner. (emphasis mine)

8. In short, the document Ben Kenobi cited stands for the contention that co-habiting same sex women, or put another way, lesbian couples, are less likely to report that an assault or act of violence was committed against them by their same sex partner.
9. The relevant statistic Ben Kenobi cited provided for the acts of violence or sexual violence reported by lesbian women over the course of their lifetimes. What these statistics show is that lesbian women who previously engaged in a relationship with men were more likely to report an act of violence committed upon them by their male partner--not their lesbian partner.
10. The same study, in that same paragraph, also states that same sex cohabiting women were less likely to report violence than were women who only been in a relationship with men by 8.9%.
11. Lastly, the very same paper, at the very beginning of the section dealing with same-sex violence, notes that research on the matter has been 'limited to studies of small, unrepresentative samples of gay and lesbian couples.' In short, these studies are entirely unreliable. Not only are they studies that do nothing to support Ben Kenobi's contention; they do nothing to support anyone's contention.

-Conclusion-
12. I think that you (BK) have failed to cite any evidence in support of your argument.

--Conclusion--
13. Ben Kenobi has argued (thus far without citing any evidence in his favour) that same sex couples (both men and women) should not be permitted to adopt children or conceive them with the assistance of the state for the following reasons:

(a) more likely to commit violence against one another.

This has already been dealt with above. Suffice to say that according to the document Ben Kenobi cited, no studies representative of the homosexual community as a whole exist in support of his contention. The study Ben Kenobi cited dealt only with women, and in fact detracted from (rather than supported) his point.

(b) More likely to perpetrate sexual violence against children or sexual assault, i.e. rape and pedophilia.

No evidence has been cited in aid of this contention.

(c) More likely to enter into unstable relationships with one another.
No evidence has been submitted in aid of this contention.

I look forward to discussing this further if you wish.

[Ben Kenobi]

6. I do not find this contention to be convincing. The evidence upon which it is based is flawed and, by the admission of the authors of the paper itself, entirely unreliable in so far as it relates to the making of a generalisation about the entirety of the gay community.

I'm not surprised. I could cite any paper, and I'm sure people would nitpick. The numbers are still there, and I don't think they help the case, especially since we are only looking at one half of the problem (where the other half is generally assumed to be true).

At first glance, these findings suggest that both male and female same-sex couples experience more intimate partner violence than do opposite sex couples.

However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender produced some interesting findings: 30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner. (emphasis mine)

You don't see a problem with this statement?

1. The first sentence says they are going to compare same sex cohabiting with opposite sex cohabiting, ie, the lesbians with heterosexual women.

2. Instead, they say that same sex women are more likely to be abused by men then women. That's not the comparison we are looking for.

8. In short, the document Ben Kenobi cited stands for the contention that co-habiting same sex women, or put another way, lesbian couples, are less likely to report that an assault or act of violence was committed against them by their same sex partner.

No, I stand for the conclusion that the study evades, that women are less likely to be abused by men when they are in an opposite sex cohabiting relationship then they are when they are in a same sex relationship. The study says that they are going to do this, when they actually do nothing of the sort.

9. The relevant statistic Ben Kenobi cited provided for the acts of violence or sexual violence reported by lesbian women over the course of their lifetimes. What these statistics show is that lesbian women who previously engaged in a relationship with men were more likely to report an act of violence committed upon them by their male partner--not their lesbian partner.

Which raises the interesting question.

1. This rate is HIGHER then the rate of abuse by men on women in cohabiting relationships. It's actually substantially higher. Why would lesbians be more likely to experience abuse by their male partners then other women? Are lesbians more likely to lie about their previous experiences?

10. The same study, in that same paragraph, also states that same sex cohabiting women were less likely to report violence than were women who only been in a relationship with men by 8.9%.

That's a huge amount, to be honest, which means that about 50 percent of the incidents go unreported.

11. Lastly, the very same paper, at the very beginning of the section dealing with same-sex violence, notes that research on the matter has been 'limited to studies of small, unrepresentative samples of gay and lesbian couples.'

Which means that the proper conclusion is that lesbian relationships may or may not be more abusive then heterosexual relationships. Instead the study, (without any basis), goes on to say that they is NO DIFFERENCE. This is bias, out and out. You cannot draw that conclusion, when your evidence is contrary.

12. I think that you (BK) have failed to cite any evidence in support of your argument.

You need to read the study again. It doesn't say what you are trying to have it say.

13. Ben Kenobi has argued (thus far without citing any evidence in his favour)

This has already been dealt with above. Suffice to say that according to the document Ben Kenobi cited, no studies representative of the homosexual community as a whole exist in support of his contention.

Are you seriously contending that men are more likely to be abused by women then by other men? Yes or no?

[Asher]

Oh, Ben. Seriously. You make Jesus cry.

[Darius871]

Is he still going?

[Q Classic]

He's not a credit to the people who oppose gay marriage.

And that's saying something.

[MrFun]

Hey, BK have you ever heard of the American sitcom, Full House? What did you think of the structure of that family?

[Zevico]

This document is utterly irrelevant by the admission of the authors of the document. The study was only of about 70 women from a sample size of about 7000.

All that I ask is that you read carefully, cite carefully and post carefully. I will try to correct you, if you do the same.
Given that you are responding to so many people at once I understand that this is a difficult thing to do--this is hardly the highest priority in your day. If you don't wish to have this discussion, I understand.

What follows are some reading comprehension corrections. Please read more carefully.

That's a huge amount, to be honest, which means that about 50 percent of the incidents go unreported.

'Report', in the context of that paragraph, meant, 'tell the surveyors'. Not the police. Please try to read more carefully. But this is all utterly irrelevant, as the authors of the survey admit .

No, I stand for the conclusion that the study evades, that women are less likely to be abused by men when they are in an opposite sex cohabiting relationship then they are when they are in a same sex relationship. The study says that they are going to do this, when they actually do nothing of the sort.

In the short paragraph to which you replied here, I was speaking of what the document said. Not what you said.

I will repeat, for clarity,some of my post from above for other readers. If you want to argue any of the issues presented below, or any other issue, please do so, so long as it relates to the issue outlined in [13].


13. Ben Kenobi has argued that same sex couples (both men and women) should not be permitted to adopt children or conceive them with the assistance of the state for the following reasons:

(a) more likely to commit violence against one another.
Note that we discussed a document on this matter, but the statistics it presented were inconclusive because the sample size was too small. The document deals with violence perpetrated against women by their partners (including same sex partners at a chapter beginning at page 29). It is available for download here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm


(b) More likely to perpetrate sexual violence against children or sexual assault, i.e. rape and pedophilia.

No evidence has been cited in aid of this contention.

(c) More likely to enter into unstable relationships with one another.
No evidence has been submitted in aid of this contention.

I look forward to discussing this further if you wish.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow, 5 on 1 isn't enough a dogpile?

It's more than enough, you're the only one dumb enough to not know you've been soundly beaten.

And you presume to be my parent and I your child?

Hey, you said it, not me.

Do these people tend to quote evidence to back up their presuppositions?

You don't do this, Ben. You make an outrageous claim, post links to items that do NOT support what you claim, and then continuously claim that you supported your point. This is why people are calling you dishonest, and that's the simple truth.

And you still feel so threathened as to call for my banning?

Nothing to do with feeling threatened, it's just high time people were held accountable for spreading bull****, that's all.

Wow, thank goodness this isn't SDNet. I doubt any thread here would last long.

Perhaps not once you'd entered it, no.

I've followed the law of Poly to the letter. Attack the argument not the poster. I'm perfectly willing to debate these issues using reason and logic, regardless of how many times you flame me.

You don't use reason in logic, you use falsehoods. You lie, shamelessly. My point is that SHOULD be banworthy, if it isn't already.

I don't see why you would object to the site holding people accountable for lying, unless you knew you lied a lot and would get punished.