• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
I'm still waiting for you to source some support for your contention that gay marriage is changing gay culture in europe as is your assertion in post #124. You haven't done so as yet. why not?


You don't have to look to Europe. We have same sex marriage in our country. Massachusetts was the first state in the union to legalize same sex marriage and it has the LOWEST divorce rate in the country. In fact, the divorce rate has been significantly DROPPING in Massachusetts since marriage equality was established there over half a decade ago. Whereas the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates and it is increasing.

You need further evidence? Our neighbor to the north, Canada, was the fourth nation to establish marriage equality and it has a lower divorce rate than the United States.

Nothing can save marriage in Europe. The institution is significantly different over there and only grants about 3/4ths of the rights as the institution does in the United States and Canada. Furthermore, countries like the Netherlands have established civil unions for heterosexual couples, which has significantly reduced the marriage rate as couples have opted for that alternative. In essence, civil unions and registered partnerships have done significantly more to harm marriage in Europe than allowing same sex couples to marry ever could have done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html

If you care about divorce as much as you claim you do, perhaps you ought to be a supporter of marriage equality.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to look to Europe. We have same sex marriage in our country. Massachusetts was the first state in the union to legalize same sex marriage and it has the LOWEST divorce rate in the country. In fact, the divorce rate has been significantly DROPPING in Massachusetts since marriage equality was established there over half a decade ago. Whereas the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates and it is increasing.

I didn't, you did. So, you still can't/won't provide a link to an article, study, article about a study, blog or poem suggesting support for your assertion that gay marriage is changing gay behavior in europe. Thank you for your double standard.

You need further evidence? Our neighbor to the north, Canada, was the fourth nation to establish marriage equality and it has a lower divorce rate than the United States.

Nothing can save marriage in Europe. The institution is significantly different over there and only grants about 3/4ths of the rights as the institution does in the United States and Canada. Furthermore, countries like the Netherlands have established civil unions for heterosexual couples, which has significantly reduced the marriage rate as couples have opted for that alternative. In essence, civil unions and registered partnerships have done significantly more to harm marriage in Europe than allowing same sex couples to marry ever could have done.

Bruce Wilson: Divorce Rate in Gay Marriage-Legal MA Drops To Pre-WWII Level
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html

Evidence of just what exactly. Western europe, canada and those blue states that have legitimized the concept of gay marriage have seen divorce rates drop. They have also seen the number of marriages drop. They have also seen declining birth rates. In europe's case critically low replacement rates. In america liberal families produce fewer children than traditional families do. Is there a correlation? Is it possible that humanistic culture encourages risks when they change the traditional rational for marriage? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows for sure but it's something that should be considered if you want to avoid a population collapse. Societies do need people after all.

If you care about divorce as much as you claim you do, perhaps you ought to be a supporter of marriage equality.

I care about my people. I care about the culture that has nourished and sustained them for so long. You view this as a civil rights issue. I view it as a political issue..........rooted in culture. Ok, let's simply divorce our cultures. You go your way, let us go ours. Let the blue state adopt gay marriage, let the red ones keep a traditonal marriage intact.
 
It was only in the last hundred years that a woman was given the legal ability to refuse to have sex with her husband. Yes, that's right, "I'm her husband" was a defense against rape.

I would like to point out that it has only been less than 12 years in our own military that the UCMJ was changed on this.

When I joined in '98, the UCMJ still stated that rape could only happen if the people were not married. It was changed shortly after, and the person could still get charged with another UCMJ article if they were raping their wife (I believe they put it under "disobeying an order" or whichever one applies to breaking civil laws), but it wasn't an actual violation of the UCMJ rape Article until it was changed.
 
I didn't, you did. So, you still can't/won't provide a link to an article, study, article about a study, blog or poem suggesting support for your assertion that gay marriage is changing gay behavior in europe. Thank you for your double standard.

[/url]

Evidence of just what exactly. Western europe, canada and those blue states that have legitimized the concept of gay marriage have seen divorce rates drop. They have also seen the number of marriages drop. They have also seen declining birth rates. In europe's case critically low replacement rates. In america liberal families produce fewer children than traditional families do. Is there a correlation? Is it possible that humanistic culture encourages risks when they change the traditional rational for marriage? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows for sure but it's something that should be considered if you want to avoid a population collapse. Societies do need people after all.



I care about my people. I care about the culture that has nourished and sustained them for so long. You view this as a civil rights issue. I view it as a political issue..........rooted in culture. Ok, let's simply divorce our cultures. You go your way, let us go ours. Let the blue state adopt gay marriage, let the red ones keep a traditonal marriage intact.

Who are your people? obviously not ALL Americans just the ones you choose not to discriminate against.


There were probably people that thought minority rights, women rights and interracial marriage wasnt about civil rights either, they were wrong then just like they are wrong today too.
 
I didn't, you did. So, you still can't/won't provide a link to an article, study, article about a study, blog or poem suggesting support for your assertion that gay marriage is changing gay behavior in europe. Thank you for your double standard.

[/url]

Evidence of just what exactly. Western europe, canada and those blue states that have legitimized the concept of gay marriage have seen divorce rates drop. They have also seen the number of marriages drop. They have also seen declining birth rates. In europe's case critically low replacement rates. In america liberal families produce fewer children than traditional families do. Is there a correlation? Is it possible that humanistic culture encourages risks when they change the traditional rational for marriage? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows for sure but it's something that should be considered if you want to avoid a population collapse. Societies do need people after all.



I care about my people. I care about the culture that has nourished and sustained them for so long. You view this as a civil rights issue. I view it as a political issue..........rooted in culture. Ok, let's simply divorce our cultures. You go your way, let us go ours. Let the blue state adopt gay marriage, let the red ones keep a traditonal marriage intact.

Why do we need so many people? Less people on the planet is a good direction as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, it would seem then that you wouldn't have so much of a problem with allowing these things, since it would mean less "liberals" being born, and eventually lead to your side having a supermajority to get whatever you want put into place, even constitutionally.

Also, we are all one country. We cannot allow a state or group of states to allow such discrimination just because they don't want to be tolerant. It didn't work with Jim Crow laws or segregation, it won't work now. If they absolutely can't handle equality, then they should find a different country to live in. Otherwise, accept it and move on.
 
That depends on your culture. Most adherents of traditional culture have expectations of what constitute a good marriage. Sometimes it doesn't happen. People stray. Most heteros don't. However, what if you belonged to a culture that wasn't traditional? What if you went into marriage without an expectation of fidelity? If that's the case the institution of marriage, the idea of marriage won't promote monogamy. It's really quite simple when you think about it.


Yeah, it is pretty simple and that is why I am astounded that you are missing the point. Gays aren't allowed to be married, so any study or observation off of their relationship is skewed, that is the whold point that I was adderssing. Single Heteros shift relationships as much as single homos shift relationships. That is the point. Of course married heteros maintain longer lasting relationships that married homos, and that is becauuse, until very recently, there have been no married homos. The point is that not allowing homos to marry forced them into single like relationships and they acted accordingly. Once two people are "married" legally, it changes the very nature of their relationship to a very stable one. Marriage promotes unity and stability... Do ya follow?

Originally Posted by Blackdog
If this were true the divorce rate would not be up wards of 33 - 50%. It has little affect if any on the length of time. Children have some effect, but according to the 50% rate, not much and almost never good.

The stats are being skewed since people are viewing marriage in a different light now-a-days... but not most people. If you look further, you would find that there is a small minority out there that is having 3 and 4 marriages like my ex-wife and others like me who probably won't get married again. She, and my uncle who married 5 times and my grandma who married three times are skewing the stats. Also, many people divorce and then remarry each other, and that affects the stats too...
 
LMAO change gears all you want, your arguments have no merit for GAY marriage, only MARRIAGE.
Like I said if you want to change marriage in general that's fine I have no problem with that but you dont discriminate against gays while doing so you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

Also your example is dumb for 2 reasons, CWPs what I call them and have, do not discriminate against gays.
Secondly since the MARRIAGE license isn't called a RIGHT TO BARE CHILDREN license it makes no sense what so ever. LMAO

Where have I discriminated against gays?

Quote with link, please.
 
Originally Posted by Centrist77
LMAO change gears all you want, your arguments have no merit for GAY marriage, only MARRIAGE.
Like I said if you want to change marriage in general that's fine I have no problem with that but you dont discriminate against gays while doing so you bring them for the ride so we ALL improve.

Also your example is dumb for 2 reasons, CWPs what I call them and have, do not discriminate against gays.
Secondly since the MARRIAGE license isn't called a RIGHT TO BARE CHILDREN license it makes no sense what so ever. LMAO

LMAO LMAO LMAO Emotional instability? ...and where has he discriminated against gays?
 
Where have I discriminated against gays?

Quote with link, please.

quote the link where i said YOU specifically did, I was simply stating that no matter your approach, which is IMPROVING MARRIAGE, you cant leave gays out LMAO What that means is what ive been stating to you the whole time. What ever you want to do to improve marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage so your points are moot, any changes must include them.

Now use an arguments against GAY marriage lol
 
Last edited:
See my reply to him LMAO

I don't get it? ... and it appears you meant "you" in the plural sense.

An argument against gay marriage? Ok, it will lead to marriage between humans and dogs...
 
I don't get it? ... and it appears you meant "you" in the plural sense.

An argument against gay marriage? Ok, it will lead to marriage between humans and dogs...

What it meant was all his arguments are for another topic and no matter what people want to do in improving marriage YOU can't discriminate against gays. Its a general statement.

Just like saying, no matter how mad people get about <insert topic here> YOU can't just murder everybody.

Also I know you are joking about Gay Rights leading to legal animal marriage. ;)
 
source

Marriage, Divorce, and Single Parenthood

Encouraging and supporting healthy marriages is a cornerstone of the Bush Administration's proposed policies for addressing the poverty-related woes of single-parent households and, importantly, for improving the well-being of low-income children. The rationale is reasonably straightforward: About a third of all children born in the United States each year are born out of wedlock. Similarly, about half of all first marriages end in divorce, and when children are involved, many of the resulting single-parent households are poor. For example, less than 10 percent of married couples with children are poor as compared with about 35 to 40 percent of single-mother families. The combination of an alarmingly high proportion of all new births occurring out of wedlock and discouragingly high divorce rates among families with children ensures that the majority of America's children will spend a significant amount of their childhood in single-parent households. Moreover, research shows that even after one controls for a range of family background differences, children who grow up living in an intact household with both biological parents present seem to do better, on average, on a wide range of social indicators than do children who grow up in a single-parent household (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). For example, they are less likely to drop out of school, become a teen parent, be arrested, and be unemployed. While single parenthood is not the main nor the sole cause of children's increased likelihood of engaging in one of these detrimental behaviors, it is one contributing factor. Put another way, equalizing income and opportunity do improve the life outcomes of children growing up in single-parent households, but children raised in two-parent families still have an advantage.If the failure of parents to marry and persistently high rates of divorce are behind the high percentage of children who grow up in a single-parent family, can and should policy attempt to reverse these trends? Since Daniel Patrick Moynihan first lamented what he identified as the decline of the black family in his 1965 report, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, marriage has been a controversial subject for social policy and scholarship. The initial reaction to Moynihan was harsh; scholars argued vehemently that family structure and, thus, father absence was not a determinant of child well-being. But then in the 1980s, psychologists (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Hetherington, 1982) began producing evidence that divorce among middle-class families was harmful to children. Renewed interest among sociologists and demographers (Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1994) in the link between poverty and single parenthood soon emerged, and as noted above, that work increasingly began building toward the conclusion that family structure did matter (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Of course, the debate was not just about family structure and income differences; it was also about race and gender. When Moynihan wrote in 1965, 24 percent of all births among African-Americans occurred outside of marriage. Today, the black out-of-wedlock birthrate is almost 70 percent, and the white rate has reached nearly 24 percent. If single parenthood is a problem, that problem cuts across race and ethnicity.

But the story has nuance. Yes, growing up with two parents is better for children, but only when both mother and father are the biological or “intact” (as opposed to remarried) parents. In fact, there is some evidence that second marriages can actually be harmful to adolescents. Moreover, marriage can help children only if the marriage is a healthy one. While the definition of a “healthy marriage” is itself subject to debate, it is typically characterized as high in positive interaction, satisfaction, and stability and low in conflict. Unhealthy marriages characterized by substantial parental conflict pose a clear risk for child well-being, both because of the direct negative effects that result when children witness conflict between parents, and because of conflict's indirect effects on parenting skills. Marital hostility is associated with increased aggression and disruptive behaviors on the part of children which, in turn, seem to lead to peer rejection, academic failure, and other antisocial behaviors (Cummings and Davies, 1994; Webster-Stratton, 2003).


Critical thinkin' skills made the statement that I was "delusional" for suggesting that the very best possible environment for children was with a two parent home with biological parents on post 167. He also went on to explain that "evidence" and "reality" didn't support my assertion that "intact families" with "biological parents, one male one female" were the best of all possible combinations for raising children. He did not provide a single link supporting his "evidence" and no rational for his "reality."

The idea that the best possible arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children is the male/female/long term pairing isn't something new. It is the very basis for family structures in traditional western european culture, my culture. Is stability important to the welfare of children. Yes. This article states flat out stability is important and points to some rather sobering statistics of the results of instability in family pairings. We all know the results of broken family units, crime, drugs, promiscuity, out of wedlock births and a cycle of poverty that is almost impossible to break. I've related some of my personal and professional experiences with just this on post 213 are anectdotal, but they are directly in line with this article and the research it it's based on.

I have been criticized for comparing married couples and the unmarried white lesbian couples most often mentioned in the new studies being touted by capn crunch. Children don't necessarily know if their parents have a legal marriage licence. What they do know is if their parents are providing a stable environment for them. They damn well know if their perceived parents have stable long term relationships.

According to this article from the catholic education organization (feel free to hate the source, they're only christians after all) 75% of gay males have more than 100 partners in a lifetime. 28% of gay males claim more than 1,000 partners in a lifetime. Does having several hundred sexual partners during one's lifetime constitute stability? It's a judgement call on your part. I say no. It's been suggested by several of you that the idea of marriage will change gay lifestyles and provide the stability needed to raise children. Again, it's a judgement call, and again, I say no.

How do gays feel about monogamy? This sfgate article (also refered to by my new york times article btw) references a study by colleen hoff found some 47% believe in open relationships, 45% believe in monogamy and 8% couldn't seem to agree about what they were :)doh). How does that compare to hetero feelings about monogamy? According to this wiki article something like between 1.7 and 7% of married people have open relationships.

What does all of this have to do with all those peer reviewed studies referenced but not still not linked by capn crunch? I can already tell you what they say. They all say one of two things; a: there is absolutely no differences between children raised in (primarily) white college educated lesbian households or b: children raised in (primarily) white college educated lesbian households are better adjusted than those raised in hetero (unknown) combination homes. Isn't that nice. White college educated lesbians (primarily) parents do as good or better a job at raising children than intact/biological/parents/male/female pairings. Wow!! That would mean that these new studies completely negate all of those earlier studies referenced in this article an and all of those other ones preceeding this one for boot! Just how is that possible? According to this article from slate the author, ann hullbert suggests, strongly, weak science and bias on the part of the researchers. Really, bias on the part of researchers in peer reviewed studies? Is that even possible? According to the article, yes.

I offered a list of possible problems with these peer reviewed offered by capn crunch still without functioning links and was criticized for doing so on post 135 by zyflis for "a laundry list of complaints" about a series of studies that fairly scream "bias?" Curses, foiled again. :roll:

Has there been a double standard on this thread? I'll leave that up to you but I know what my father would have said "don't piss on me and then tell me it's rainin"
 
Last edited:
Firstly, you can read my username. Do not post it incorrectly again.

Gee capt curious just when did you do that? Would that be that list of studies that seemed to arrive at the same eerily similar findings, gay parents, all gay parents raise children superior in every way to the children raised in two parent homes? Repeatable results in a petrie dish is one thing but just when did any study of human behavior provides such splendidly pristine results?

I know it demonstrates that your position is wrong, and I know that you don't like that. Too bad. Doesn't alter facts. I suppose that means that you will either have to re-evaluate your position or continue to support things that are erroneous... just to avoid cognative dissonance. Gee... I wonder which one you'll do.





Pardon me, you destroyed schumm's study......really? Ok, you approve of those studies that support your bias and "destroy" those that don't support them. I suppose it would just be plain bad form to simply disagree with your assertion you have "destroyed" schumm's study. I'll simply have to take your word schumm's study is.........not credible.

No, I demonstrate when a study has methodological flaws that show it has no validity. That's what I did with Schumm's study in the thread that Your Star linked. I'm certain I wasn't the first person to do so. Maybe just the first person, HERE. Now, you could go and read my posts in that thread... so we would have a frame of reference to discuss. Or, you could continue to discuss what you don't know anything about. Gee... I wonder which one of THESE you'll choose.



You mean unlike telling me you've destroyed schumm's study and it isn't credible because.........you said so? I'm sorry capt curious but your hypocracy is showing. I am well aware shumm's study isn't popular but I hardly think your opinion qualifies as fact in this case. I have some rather serious doubts about those studies you've provided. That amounts to my opinion, not fact. I believe you to be in the same boat as I, mearly providing an opinion based on research data neither of us actually posses. I told you to expect this.

Poor Dutch. You have nothing. Go read the othe thread. It's not "just my opinion". I gave plenty of evidence and infrormation. I purchased the study and examined the data. That trumps anything you've done by a huge margin. You, on the other hand have provided nothing to support your opinions. Not surprisingly. That's why their value is quite questionable.
 
Yeah, it is pretty simple and that is why I am astounded that you are missing the point. Gays aren't allowed to be married, so any study or observation off of their relationship is skewed, that is the whold point that I was adderssing. Single Heteros shift relationships as much as single homos shift relationships. That is the point. Of course married heteros maintain longer lasting relationships that married homos, and that is becauuse, until very recently, there have been no married homos. The point is that not allowing homos to marry forced them into single like relationships and they acted accordingly. Once two people are "married" legally, it changes the very nature of their relationship to a very stable one. Marriage promotes unity and stability... Do ya follow?

Several people have made the same assertion as you are making now. Tell me just how is it that a gay community that views monogamy in a much different light than the hetero community will simply adopt hetero views on monogamy simply because of a marriage licence? It's not that people can't or won't change behavior. It's a matter of just why a licence, one many humanists don't place much value on anyway will stimulate that change.

You are entitled to your opinion, skippy, but neither you nor anyone else here has even tried to explain just how this one is supposed to work or even why it would happen. Saying it smugly and pretending it's the end of the matter isn't enough. I humbly suggest this is far more likely projection on your part than anything else.

For my part I'm not interested in any social engineering schemes to change the gay community. I'm all about leaving them the hell alone. That's what I would like for myself. I should think you would too. This isn't projection on my part, it's just wishful thinking. Do you follow, skippy?
 
Last edited:
By the way. I reposted the link to all the information last night. Go to post #129.
 
That depends on your culture. Most adherents of traditional culture have expectations of what constitute a good marriage. Sometimes it doesn't happen. People stray. Most heteros don't. However, what if you belonged to a culture that wasn't traditional? What if you went into marriage without an expectation of fidelity? If that's the case the institution of marriage, the idea of marriage won't promote monogamy. It's really quite simple when you think about it.


Most heteros don't.

What now!? Are we living on the same planet here? Where 50% of those legal heterosexual marriages fail, DNA tests are showing that a lot of men are raising other men's children, and HIV is spreading like wildfire through the heterosexual population, overtaking gays? A person's sexual orientation has no bearing at all on their sexual fidelity, which, in turn, has no bearing on their fitness for marriage. Sexual fidelity is an agreement between the people involved and no one else. Swingers are legitimately married. Their choices do not invalidate their marriages.

Here are the real facts.

1) Some married couples do not have children. Child raising is a side effect of marriage. Even if is a common purpose, it is still not all-encompassing.
2) Plenty of marriages fail, for many reasons.
3) Loving parents raise children well, regardless of their sexuality.

There is no cause to deny the right of any consenting adult to enter into a marriage contract with any other consenting adult. That's it.
 
Firstly, you can read my username. Do not post it incorrectly again.

aye aye capn crunch.


I know it demonstrates that your position is wrong, and I know that you don't like that. Too bad. Doesn't alter facts. I suppose that means that you will either have to re-evaluate your position or continue to support things that are erroneous... just to avoid cognative dissonance. Gee... I wonder which one you'll do.

{sigh} opinion.





No, I demonstrate when a study has methodological flaws that show it has no validity. That's what I did with Schumm's study in the thread that Your Star linked. I'm certain I wasn't the first person to do so. Maybe just the first person, HERE. Now, you could go and read my posts in that thread... so we would have a frame of reference to discuss. Or, you could continue to discuss what you don't know anything about. Gee... I wonder which one of THESE you'll choose.

Fine, how bout a little linky. Your star tricked me into watching rachel maddow on youtube. {sigh}

Poor Dutch. You have nothing. Go read the othe thread. It's not "just my opinion". I gave plenty of evidence and infrormation. I purchased the study and examined the data. That trumps anything you've done by a huge margin. You, on the other hand have provided nothing to support your opinions. Not surprisingly. That's why their value is quite questionable.

Once again, how bout a link capn linkless. and if I see one more rachel maddow video...........I'm outta there.
 
What now!? Are we living on the same planet here? Where 50% of those legal heterosexual marriages fail, DNA tests are showing that a lot of men are raising other men's children, and HIV is spreading like wildfire through the heterosexual population, overtaking gays? A person's sexual orientation has no bearing at all on their sexual fidelity, which, in turn, has no bearing on their fitness for marriage. Sexual fidelity is an agreement between the people involved and no one else. Swingers are legitimately married. Their choices do not invalidate their marriages.

Here are the real facts.

1) Some married couples do not have children. Child raising is a side effect of marriage. Even if is a common purpose, it is still not all-encompassing.2) Plenty of marriages fail, for many reasons.
3) Loving parents raise children well, regardless of their sexuality.There is no cause to deny the right of any consenting adult to enter into a marriage contract with any other consenting adult. That's it.

If those statements are "facts" you won't have any problem linking; an article, a study, an article about a study, a blog, or even a really really nice poem. If those "facts" are opinion you don't havta' link anything. There, see how easy that is. All ya' need is a functioning brain to discern the difference.
 
Last edited:
By the way. I reposted the link to all the information last night. Go to post #129.

It always a pleasure to watch you work in gay rights threads. You have even done some work in threads of my own and after fallacy upon fallacy is slapped down it always humors me to see people deny reality over and over again with more and more desperate measures.

Id love to know how many broken keyboards, mice and monitors your facts and logic have caused the over emotional, discriminatory and illogical to break. Some times I can almost hear them punching their keyboards :D

Good posting.
 
Last edited:
Several people have made the same assertion as you are making now. Tell me just how is it that a gay community that views monogamy in a much different light than the hetero community will simply adopt hetero views on monogamy simply because of a marriage licence? It's not that people can't or won't change behavior. It's a matter of just why a licence, one many humanists don't place much value on anyway will stimulate that change.


I made a distinction between a single relationship and a married one. They are distinctly different, and any person that has been in a monogamous relationship for a time and then was married would know the difference. One promotes more stability than the other... it is irrelevant if "many" humanists don't place value in it, most people do.

I made it quite clear that both heteros and homos view a singles relationship pretty much the same, so I have no idea where you are getting that I am saying that they view it in a much different light. *shrugs*

You are entitled to your opinion, skippy, but neither you nor anyone else here has even tried to explain just how this one is supposed to work or even why it would happen. Saying it smugly and pretending it's the end of the matter isn't enough. I humbly suggest this is far more likely projection on your part than anything else.

Defensive much? Sheesh... I am talking, not smugly... just in an average manner. I would suggest that the one casting aspersions about others projecting should first look in the mirror and see that maybe it is just himself engaging in said behaviour. Additionally, does calling me a silly name help you feel superior and elevate yourself to yourself in some way?

For my part I'm not interested in any social engineering schemes to change the gay community. I'm all about leaving them the hell alone. That's what I would like for myself. I should think you would too. This isn't projection on my part, it's just wishful thinking. Do you follow, skippy?

I am glad that you want to leave them alone. Granting gay marriage is certainly not interferring with them in any way, so I am sure that you are now firmly in favour of granting them same sex marriage?
 
If those statements are "facts" you won't have any problem linking; an article, a study, an article about a study, a blog, or even a really really nice poem. If those "facts" are opinion you don't havta' link anything. There, see how easy that is. All ya' need is a functioning brain to discern the difference.

I'll help him out a little.

First, there are a growing number of married couples who choose to be childless in the US.

Childless By Choice - childless couples an emerging demographic - Statistical Data Included | American Demographics | Find Articles at BNET

I would say that 18.4% is a pretty significant number of couples that don't have children. These are couples where the woman is within childbearing age 15-44. It looks from the data, that at least around 6% of those couples (or more) are actually choosing not to have children. And this is from studies done between 1995 and 1998. Those trends were/are going up, not down.

Second, this is the CDC's report on how many people/couples are infertile.

FASTSTATS - Infertility

That is another 7.4% of couples that won't be having who are within childbearing age.

And that doesn't even count people who are done raising their own children nor people who get married after the woman's childbearing age (45+). Nor does it count men who cannot conceive children.

So no, marriage is not purely for childbearing purposes when at least 10% of married US couples cannot have or do not want their own children.
 
How do gays feel about monogamy? This sfgate article (also refered to by my new york times article btw) references a study by colleen hoff found some 47% believe in open relationships, 45% believe in monogamy and 8% couldn't seem to agree about what they were :)doh). How does that compare to hetero feelings about monogamy? According to this wiki article something like between 1.7 and 7% of married people have open relationships. [/FONT][/SIZE]

Regarding just this from your post, one thing that you haven't included in this is how many heterosexual men and women choose to remain single because they don't believe in monogamy. You can't compare the homosexual attitude toward monogamy with how many straights are in open marriages, because it fails to include any straight people who aren't for monogamy, and decide to remain single or at least not get married for that fact.

Plus, just because someone isn't in an open marriage, doesn't mean that the person believes that they, personally believe in monogamy. Plenty of married men and women commit adultery without their partners consent.
 
Back
Top Bottom