Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, are you trying to tell me that 2 gay guys who get " married " will be more faithful to each other and happier? Do you know the stats regarding sex partners and infidelity for gay men? It's amazing.> Several points here. First of all, have you seen the stats for fidelty and Lesbian couples? It's higher than for straights. That's half the equation, after all. If you were really worried about fidelity, you should be on the front lines agitating for Lesbian marriage. But you're not, because you're just using stats in an attempt to back up what you've already decided. Second, if you're really all that worried about fidelity, you should be agitating for gay men to get married too. I'm sure you're been tempted to cheat once or twice yourself- you're human. But did you flash back to your vows where you promised you wouldn't? I have. But most gay men still don't have marriage ceremonies even if they're committed, because they don't do anything legally. But we did have a committment ceremony, and it really did make me feel, well, more committed. The more gay men who do that, the more that would be true, particularly if it was a legal ceremony. Third, as Gad says, the government doesn't get into fidelity. When a spouse (let's say the husband) cheats, that couple is not required to divorce, now are they? It can be grounds for divorce, but it's not a requirement. I'm sure we all know a couple where the guy has cheated multiple times, and she keeps taking him back. That's her decision. The government does not get involved, nor should they. Last, some couples cheat openly, gay and straight, and the government likewise does not concern itself with that. There are dozens and dozens of websites, Beau, of "swinging" married couples looking for a third partner, or a one-on-one with someone else with the spouse's blessing. Does the government check out those website and insist that anyone advertising on them get divorced? No, they do not. Once again, all I'm asking for is equality. If straights are not required by the government to remain faithful and remain married, neither should I be (although I will, because it's important to us). It that sense it doesn't matter if gay male couples cheat more than straights - of course, the real deal is that men cheat more than women, hence the lower stats with lesbian couples. <But, yes, married couples are happier and live longer. But the government is not around to make sure people are happy. It is there to make sure we are protected from attacks and that we continue to function as a nation.> It also includes all sorts of incentives to make sure people are healthier, more stable, financially better off, etc. All these things are tied to marriage statistically also. <Being happy is something you need to do on your own.> I agree. But I'd be very happy if my government treated me as your equal. <How about the studies from Scandanavia that PROVE gay marriage has produced more single parent households because marriage has been devalued?> Still think Kurtz proves a damn thing? We discussed this earlier and why his methods and assumptions are fatally flawed. Yet, there he is again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Polygamy has to be allowed if you allow gay marriage Gadzuux. Don't you understand that? So I bring it up.. You keep saying this, and it remains untrue. The law makes distinctions constantly. Because we legalized alcohol again after Prohibition, did it mean we legalized heroin? Of course not. Polygamy is merely a social arrangement, and has nothing to do with inherent sexual orientation. This is the distinction you remain blind to, but the law will not (eventually).
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Polygamy is merely a social arrangement, and has nothing to do with inherent sexual orientation. >> Not true Dabob. You want to look at it that way but most would disagree with you. The results of gay marraige votes prove this. Gay marriage is nothing more than a way to change the meaning of marriage. ( one man and one woman ) All the mumbo jumbo about inherant sexual orientation doens't change this. You want to make new rules for marriage yet your willing to draw the line where it makes you comfortable. How dare you draw that line against a polygamist or a guy who wants to marry his sister or cousin or a 12 year old. That is the very discrimination the gay marriage crowd whines about. <<Still think Kurtz proves a damn thing? We discussed this earlier and why his methods and assumptions are fatally flawed. Yet, there he is again.>> Did you read his latest article where he takes on the people who said his 2004 study was flawed. His arguments seem pretty darn solid to me that gay marriage has hurt every culture it has been allowed to go into.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Several points here. First of all, have you seen the stats for fidelty and Lesbian couples? It's higher than for straights. >> Fine, I will trust this to be true. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The study found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year. A year!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Polygamy is merely a social arrangement, and has nothing to do with inherent sexual orientation. >> <Not true Dabob. You want to look at it that way but most would disagree with you. The results of gay marraige votes prove this.> How people vote on gay marriage has nothing to do with whether polygamy is a social arrangement or not. Obviously, it is. Some cultures allow it, some do not. It does not change your sexual orientation if you are legally allowed one wife or five - that's my point. >Gay marriage is nothing more than a way to change the meaning of marriage. ( one man and one woman )> Gay marriage is a way to include people who are currently excluded in any meaningful way from the institution INTO the institution. Gay marriage for gay people makes perfect sense. <All the mumbo jumbo about inherant sexual orientation doens't change this.> It's not mumbo jumbo, Beau, it's simple fact. You understand intrinisically that your sexual orientation is inherent to you. Well, so is mine. <You want to make new rules for marriage yet your willing to draw the line where it makes you comfortable. How dare you draw that line against a polygamist or a guy who wants to marry his sister or cousin or a 12 year old. That is the very discrimination the gay marriage crowd whines about.> Neither of those situations involves two consenting adults, now does it? So stop with the apples and oranges. Besides, we draw lines all the time. We used to draw the line at same race only. But people who loved each other and were of different races challenged that, and won. Now people who are inherently homosexual are challenging, and we will win eventually too. The wind is most definitely in our direction, which I think is what scares you. And hey, if people want to redraw the lines again to allow adult/child marriages, let 'em try. That's democracy. <<Still think Kurtz proves a damn thing? We discussed this earlier and why his methods and assumptions are fatally flawed. Yet, there he is again.>> <Did you read his latest article where he takes on the people who said his 2004 study was flawed. His arguments seem pretty darn solid to me that gay marriage has hurt every culture it has been allowed to go into.> Yes, read it and commented on it already, probably within this thread. His methodology and assumptions both invalidate his conclusions. Chiefly, in the more recent article, he concludes that since legalizing gay marriage and making straight marriage and straight co-habition more equal under the law happened at roughly the same time in Sweden, that a). they are causal of each other, and b). it would necessarily happen that way in the US. Both these assumptions fail the most basic tests of logic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The study found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year. A year!> As I said, Beau, until we start requiring unfaithful straight relationships to end in divorce, we shouldn't do the same for gays. Equality. (There's that pesky word again).
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Neither of those situations involves two consenting adults, now does it? So stop with the apples and oranges. >> Ahhhh.... is that what the rules are now? Two consenting adults? Where did you get this? Your making stuff up. <<Now people who are inherently homosexual are challenging, and we will win eventually too. The wind is most definitely in our direction, which I think is what scares you.>> Again, so says you because you think it helps your argument. But when people vote on gay marriage you get crushed, even in liberal Oregon. You think that is the wind blowing your way? The only chance you have is to get liberal judges who will see it your way. <<And hey, if people want to redraw the lines again to allow adult/child marriages, let 'em try. That's democracy.>> Well hello, I agree with you. But you know just like gay marriage this will never pass on election day. As far as Kurtz goes, his numbers and stats certainly stand up to all tests. I don't know how you can deny the patterns. <<As I said, Beau, until we start requiring unfaithful straight relationships to end in divorce, we shouldn't do the same for gays. Equality. (There's that pesky word again).>> You do have equality Dabob. But you want to change the rules much like a 16 year old wants to change the age where he can drink or drive. There is nothing you can't do that I can't do. If I wanted to marry a guy I would also be out of luck. I know you don't like the way the system is set up, but the rules are there for a reason. The rules are there so a brother and a sister can't get married even though they are consenting adults.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 << Neither of those situations involves two consenting adults, now does it? So stop with the apples and oranges. >> <Ahhhh.... is that what the rules are now? Two consenting adults? Where did you get this? Your making stuff up.> Look at court cases, Beau, here and in other countries. I'm hardly making things up. <<Now people who are inherently homosexual are challenging, and we will win eventually too. The wind is most definitely in our direction, which I think is what scares you.>> <Again, so says you because you think it helps your argument. But when people vote on gay marriage you get crushed, even in liberal Oregon. You think that is the wind blowing your way?> It clearly is. The percentage of Americans favoring full gay marriage is now about 35%. 10 years ago is was about 20%, 20 years ago it was a blip on the radar. Even you can see that trend, no? It's also very much like what happened with integration. Millions of people who once opposed integration (or were indifferent and fine with the status quo) changed their minds to favor it; very few people who ever favored integration changed their minds to become segregationists. The trend was basically all in one direction. As it is here. Moreover, an additional 25% favors civil unions. That's 60% who favor some form of legal recognition for our unions. But wait, there's more! A majority of Americans under 30 favor gay marriage. 20 years from now, since few who favor it come to disfavor it, that becomes "Americans under 50." The wind is with us, Beau, and even the cannier opponents know it; that's why they're pushing for a constitutional ammendment, to try to stop the wind in its tracks. <The only chance you have is to get liberal judges who will see it your way.> Nope, in 20 years, a majority of Americans under 50 will favor it. That will be all we need. More states, either through votes or through the courts, will enact it; we'll live for a while with a patchwork of some states with it, some states not (as we did with interracial marriage); eventually the Supreme Court will say all states must recognize it. That's my prediction, anyway. It just happened that way in Canada, of course. It will take us longer, but it will happen. <<And hey, if people want to redraw the lines again to allow adult/child marriages, let 'em try. That's democracy.>> <Well hello, I agree with you. But you know just like gay marriage this will never pass on election day.> Gay marriage will. Not today, but eventually. And if that happens, you'll be okay with it because it was voted in, right? <As far as Kurtz goes, his numbers and stats certainly stand up to all tests. I don't know how you can deny the patterns.> If you base arguments on flawed assumptions, as Kurtz did, all that flows from that is likewise flawed - that's logic 101. As a result, nothing of his stands up to scrutiny. <<As I said, Beau, until we start requiring unfaithful straight relationships to end in divorce, we shouldn't do the same for gays. Equality. (There's that pesky word again).>> <You do have equality Dabob.> No, I don't. If you didn't have it, you'd know, Beau. <But you want to change the rules much like a 16 year old wants to change the age where he can drink or drive. There is nothing you can't do that I can't do. If I wanted to marry a guy I would also be out of luck.> Me having the "right" to marry a woman is no right at all. It's like those countries who proclaim "all may practice Islam as they see fit. Sunni, Shia, whatever." Great. But what if you're not a Muslim? What kind of right is that for you? So here, one may marry someone of the opposite sex. Great. But what if you'r not straight? <I know you don't like the way the system is set up, but the rules are there for a reason. The rules are there so a brother and a sister can't get married even though they are consenting adults.> That has to do with birth defects. But you knew that. So that's a GOOD reason. There's no good reason to deny equality to gay Americans.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you base arguments on flawed assumptions, as Kurtz did, all that flows from that is likewise flawed - that's logic 101.> Kuta's "assumptions" aren't flawed. They are what is happening.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They are flawed, and so is his methodology and logic. See #33. He fails even the most basic tenets of logic.
Originally Posted By mele Let's also blame the accelerated melting of the polar ice caps on gay, married Swedes. Even though they were melting before gay marriage, it must be gay marriage that is continuing to make them melt. After all, they're both happening at the same time...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Let's also blame the accelerated melting of the polar ice caps on gay, married Swedes.>> Hey... I'm a gay (you know... happy) married Swede and I don't like being blamed for this polar ice cap stuff. ;-)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They are flawed, and so is his methodology and logic. See #33.> I read post 33. It wasn't right then, and it's still not correct.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<They are flawed, and so is his methodology and logic. See #33.>> <I read post 33. It wasn't right then, and it's still not correct.> If you're going to say that, you should say why. Does he not tie two things together as "causal" that don't necessarily go together? Yes, he does. Because Sweden made straight marriage and straight cohabiting nearly indistinguishable legally doesn't mean that the US would or should do the same. His entire arguement falls apart when one realizes this.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Does he not tie two things together as "causal" that don't necessarily go together?> Where have they not gone together? <Because Sweden made straight marriage and straight cohabiting nearly indistinguishable legally doesn't mean that the US would or should do the same. His entire arguement falls apart when one realizes this.> You're ignoring all the data he presents from Norway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Does he not tie two things together as "causal" that don't necessarily go together?>> <Where have they not gone together?> Massachusetts. <<Because Sweden made straight marriage and straight cohabiting nearly indistinguishable legally doesn't mean that the US would or should do the same. His entire arguement falls apart when one realizes this.>> <You're ignoring all the data he presents from Norway.> No, I'm not. It is likewise flawed. It is you who won't admit the flaws, even in the Swedish case.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Massachusetts.> We don't know how the change in law has affected Massachusetts yet. There's a very good chance that marriage rates will show a sharper decline after the judges overruled the existing law then it was before. <It is likewise flawed. It is you who won't admit the flaws, even in the Swedish case.> No, it's not, and no, I'm not.
