Support for same sex marriage grows... ever stronger

[rah]

And one last thought. If you agree that it does play an influence. Then if we let them marry, maybe they would feel less persecuted and not drink/use drugs/self abuse as much. Hmmm this could make them more healthy.

[Asher]

And one last thought. If you agree that it does play an influence. Then if we let them marry, maybe they would feel less persecuted and not drink/use drugs/self abuse as much. Hmmm this could make them more healthy.

This is Jon Miller's argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, so you agree that it is part of the increase that your earlier statistics showed. But you can't scientifically quantify the amount of the increase, it's just your opinion.

Actually, the burden is on you to show that there is an effect. I believe there is a small one, but that has not been proven by anyone here in this thread.

If that is the case, you can't use those statistics to show anything since you can't analyze them properly.

So I'm still waiting for health argument that can be scientifally supported instead of just biased opinions.

It is scientifically proven that gays and lesbians abuse substances at about 3x the rate. Without statistics to show otherwise, we have evidence that gays and lesbians who are abused show greater rates of abusing substances then they would otherwise. Therefore we can conclude that a significant proportion of substance abuse among homosexuals is a factor of their abusive relationships.

None of that is an opinion.

It is your opinion that society as a whole plays a factor, but we have absolutely no statistics to show that this is anything other then a trope. Until evidence is supplied, we have to conclude that it can show no appreciable influence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then if we let them marry, maybe they would feel less persecuted and not drink/use drugs/self abuse as much. Hmmm this could make them more healthy.

Compared with the first two options, it would be a markedly worse outcome. If your concern is health, then the options are celibacy or to marry a woman and have a family of your own.

By endorsing gay marriage, we are saying that this is the best you have to hope for which is not true.

[Q Classic]

It's like saying walking along an elevated train track is a less valuable activity then riding the train. The issue isn't really value, but safety.

You're still placing a value. By saying something is dangerous and that people shouldn't do it, you are saying that it does not hold as much ultimate value as the "safe" choice.

That said, you have not proven that, on the whole, homosexuality is a "dangerous" choice.

[Q Classic]

Compared with the first two options, it would be a markedly worse outcome. If your concern is health, then the options are celibacy or to marry a woman and have a family of your own.

By endorsing gay marriage, we are saying that this is the best you have to hope for which is not true.

By suggesting that gay men marry women, are you tacitly suggesting that you believe in the ex-gay movement?

Indeed (and I wish I could look for the study right now), most mixed-orientation marriages (gays married to the gender not of their orientation), the divorce rate is quite considerably higher than in straight couples.

So in essence, are you suggesting they get married, only to divorce later?

[Monk]

If your concern is health, then the options are celibacy or to marry a woman and have a family of your own.

Yeah, or maybe the gay dude and his partner could both get tested for every disease in the book and then stick with each other's company in the sexual department. Then the probability of STD's is virtually zero and the probability of pregnancy literally zero. Gay or not, they'll be safer than I am and have been. I'll be surprised if you're up for contesting this.

[Asher]

Yeah, or maybe the gay dude and his partner could both get tested for every disease in the book and then stick with each other's company in the sexual department. Then the probability of STD's is virtually zero and the probability of pregnancy literally zero. Gay or not, they'll be safer than I am and have been. I'll be surprised if you're up for contesting this.

You just described a significant portion of the gay population...several people on Poly included.

[Q Classic]

Yes, but remember, that's anecdotal evidence.

[Monk]

You just described a significant portion of the gay population...several people on Poly included.

Absolutely so.

It's painful to see this 'don't be what you are or you'll be hurt by it' idea.

For healthy young men, one of the most likely ways to die is to be in a car crash. That doesn't mean that we - including you, Ben, I assume (?) - refuse to ever drive a car or be a passenger in one.

It only means we take precautions like wearing a seatbelt and not accepting a ride from a visibly drunk driver. Sex is no different than that and there's no reason to try to rationally argue for a belief which is not founded on rational thought.

[MrFun]

It's simple. Christianity influences society to be hostile towards gays, a hostile society and rejection drives people to various vices as coping mechanisms.

It's basic psychology.

Reread my post - I mentioned same thing you mentioned, about living in an oppressive or hostile society.

But yes, you and I agree then - sexual orientation by itself is not a determining factor in liklihood of substance abuse. Rather, being gay in a homophobic society is one of factors.

[Asher]

Reread my post - I mentioned same thing you mentioned, about living in an oppressive or hostile society.

But yes, you and I agree then - sexual orientation by itself is not a determining factor in liklihood of substance abuse. Rather, being gay in a homophobic society is one of factors.

Your post didn't blame Christianity enough.

[Q Classic]

Doesn't need to blame Christianity per se, just Christianist douches.

[SpencerH]

I don't how the **** one's sexual orientation determines any liklihood of substance abuse.

Its not impossible that the brain chemistry that determines homosexuality may also predispose one to an addictive personality.

I would think belonging to a maligned, ostracized, vilified minority group of any kind is more likely to determine liklihood of substance abuse.

Makes sense to me, but it doesnt exclude the former point.

[rah]

Actually, the burden is on you to show that there is an effect. I believe there is a small one, but that has not been proven by anyone here in this thread.

You believe there is an effect, but you say the burden is on me to prove it to you before you'll believe it.

That is by far the most stupid thing I have ever read, but somehow, I'm not suprised.
Any further discussion with someone who considers your quote logical is futile.