Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Ben Kenobi]

You believe that it's only possible to love a wife and children?

I'm not the one making that accusation. You are. I'm curious what would lead you to believe I could only love an abstraction. Particularly given your marital situation is similar to mine. I won't speculate on other relationships.

Seeing as how you lack both I'll take this as your tacitly admitting that you don't love anything other than abstractions like "family" and "freedom (to own guns)." I, on the other hand, love many people despite not having a wife and children, and do not let a love of bull**** abstractions interfere with the rest of my life.

Surely if I love abstractions it would be something other than freedom to love guns as number two. You've made my day, though loinburger.

[N35t0r]

One, I'm not married. If I sincerely believed that children ought to have a father and mother who are married, I would wait until then to adopt.

Ah, so no parents is better than one?

Yes, because abuse never happens with gay people. Shall I pull up some stats on that? Violence is more not less likely for gays and lesbians within their relationships.

So you are saying that regular couples should be banned from having kids because they abuse them as well?

I don't think you have any proof that married gay parents are more abusive than regular parents, and you most definitely don't have proof that gay parents are more abusive than orphanages and foster-care homes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, so no parents is better than one?

The correct answer is to find a better choice.

So you are saying that regular couples should be banned from having kids because they abuse them as well?

I'm suggesting that your argument is a good argument not to put children in situations where they are more likely to be abused.

I don't think you have any proof that married gay parents are more abusive than regular parents

There is substantial proof that abuse is more likely.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

, and you most definitely don't have proof that gay parents are more abusive than orphanages and foster-care homes.

Yeah, actually the numbers are pretty bad when more boys than girls are sexually abused. Unless of course you believe gay men to be more than 25 percent of the population.

[N35t0r]

The correct answer is to find a better choice.

So leaving them alone is better than one parent or gay parents?

I'm suggesting that your argument is a good argument not to put children in situations where they are more likely to be abused.

So you support gay couples adopting kids, good to know

There is substantial proof that abuse is more likely.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/a-same-sex-domestic-violence-epidemic-is-silent/281131/

Yeah, actually the numbers are pretty bad when more boys than girls are sexually abused. Unless of course you believe gay men to be more than 25 percent of the population.

Um, you don't even understand the bit of text you quoted? It doesn't mention sexual abuse, nor abuse of kids by their parents...

Also, it reports that 43% of straight men abuse their wives, while 40% of gay men abuse their partners. Hardly what you claim is happening...

[grumbler]

It's nice to come back after a few years and see that nothing, really, has changed at all.

[giblets]

Is it okay for lesbians to go to a sperm bank when they want to have children or should they force themselves to have sex with a man?

[Ben Kenobi]

So leaving them alone is better than one parent or gay parents?

Again, it's like the choice between starving both children or feeding one to the other. You find another, better choice than to choose between two things that are wrong.

So you support gay couples adopting kids, good to know

Quite the opposite. I support not placing children into situations in which they are more likely to be abused.

Um, you don't even understand the bit of text you quoted? It doesn't mention sexual abuse, nor abuse of kids by their parents

And your point? Domestic partner abuse is more, not less likely. That is exactly what I said. How do you explain that away, when you stated the exact opposite?

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it okay for lesbians to go to a sperm bank when they want to have children or should they force themselves to have sex with a man?

Should "they" force themselves to have sex with a man? What are you suggesting? They take turns?

Either way the child has a mother and a father, and the child should be with their mother and their father, together. Sperm bank prevents this and the second solution, would not change this, the child would still have a father and a mother.

[loinburger]

Obviously children should be required to attend Protestant mass instead of Catholic mass so that they'll be less likely to be abused

[N35t0r]

Again, it's like the choice between starving both children or feeding one to the other. You find another, better choice than to choose between two things that are wrong.

There are two starving children. You can feed one, or none. You choose to starve both because the 'ideal' would be to feed both. (feeding one to the other yeah, construct lopsided allegories much?). Never mind that all this is only even an argument if you take your premise for true.

Quite the opposite. I support not placing children into situations in which they are more likely to be abused.

Yet there is more child abuse in orphanages and foster homes than in married gay couples with kids.

And your point? Domestic partner abuse is more, not less likely. That is exactly what I said. How do you explain that away, when you stated the exact opposite?

My point is that we were discussing child abuse, and I asked you for proof, and you came up with something else. Which doesn't even support your claim.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously children should be required to attend Protestant mass instead of Catholic mass so that they'll be less likely to be abused

Protestant mass? What's that?

[giblets]

Obviously children should be required to attend Protestant mass instead of Catholic mass so that they'll be less likely to be abused

I'm against this because the ideal would be for kids to not attend mass at all and I like to think in terms of black and white and ignore reality.

[loinburger]

Protestant mass? What's that?

Service? Whatever you want to call it. If children are more likely to be abused by Catholic priests than by Protestant ministers then we should pass a law to prevent them from getting near Catholic priests, since we're all about using statistics to curtail the rights of people.

Who are more likely to hit their kids: black parents or white parents? We should find out and prevent the guilty group from having kids. For the good of the children.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are two starving children. You can feed one, or none. You choose to starve both because the 'ideal' would be to feed both. (feeding one to the other yeah, construct lopsided allegories much?). Never mind that all this is only even an argument if you take your premise for true.

In this example, there are plenty of parents out there who want to adopt but cannot. So the analogy would be choosing to starve my children, feed one of them to the other, or to fire off a flare in a known shipping route.

Yet there is more child abuse in orphanages and foster homes than in married gay couples with kids.

The orphanages are responsible for the abuse. I am responsible for the abuse if I put the child in a situation where he is likely to be abused, knowing there are better options out there.

My point is that we were discussing child abuse, and I asked you for proof, and you came up with something else. Which doesn't even support your claim.

I found proof of greater partner abuse. Do you agree with me that partner abuse is more likely among gay and lesbian couples? What's your explanation for that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Service? Whatever you want to call it. If children are more likely to be abused by Catholic priests than by Protestant ministers then we should pass a law to prevent them from getting near Catholic priests, since we're all about using statistics to curtail the rights of people.

Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse than the general population of men.