In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
[/quote]
Gee, could this be because society does not afford them the same rights as regular couples who are married? Could it be because people such as yourself regard them with distaste and cause them to feel uncomfortable and insecure in their relationships?
Any number of factors could affect the length of their relationships, and one study with 156 participants certainly isn’t representative of the entire gay population.
Were society to allow equal rights for homosexual couples, who’s to say the length of their relationships would not increase to match the average set by heteros?
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.
…
[/quote]
Notice that even if this characterization is completely accurate, it doesn’t tell us what percentage of gay males wind up in very long term relationships. Gay males typically have a lot of relationships, until they don’t anymore.
I know several gay couples who have been together for decades in convincingly monogamistic fashion. From what I can see of it - I lived for a long while in the SF bay area - especially as gay men get older they tend to settle into long term relationships.
Did you think it would all work the same as for heterosexual pairings - other than the plumbing, I mean? Yes, naturally gay men come to marriage with more sexual history than most hetero folks do. Perhaps this makes them more deserving of the rite. In God’s eyes, I mean.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
That was a lot you wrote there, Zeb, and the best I can glean as to your answer to the actual question is that
You think it contributes to family fragmentation in some unspecified way. Well how exactly, since there would be a larger number of stable marriages as a result of legalizing gay marriage?[/quote]
Wrong, I think "family fragmentation would take place in a very “SPECIFIC” way!
Number six addressed this problem. Quite the reverse would take place (and does take place) according to M. Pollak in his study of Western Sexuality:
"A ‘Committed relationhip’ to a homosexual couple means something radically differnet than in heteresexual relationships.
A-“Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years.”
David P. McWirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty seven years:
"Only seven couples have totally exclusive sexual relationships, and these men all have been together for less than five years!
ALL COUPLES IWTH RELATIONSHIPS LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!
most understood sexual relationships outside of the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogomous standards as an act of oppression."
I can hear them cry now: “Don’t try to push your idea of what marriage is onto us. We have a different way of looking at it.”
If you think that this would be a stable environment in which to raise children you are very much mistaken!
First of all, lesbians would be able to have their own children through artificial insemination. They would most likely not be adopting any children.
Second of all, because things are not good for some children why would you think that placing them in an environment which may influence them negatively, and lead to other psychological problems be a good thing?
Remember the facts:
We don’t know why people are Gay. Not one study has turned up any proof of it being solely or even partially genetic!
If you placed children in the home of Gay couples you would then forever rule out the possiblity of them being adopted by a one man one woman couple.
"This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
Conversely, the relationships that would also be lacking; Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence."
I don’t think there are any amount of facts that would change your mind. That is one reason that I am not trying to do so. However, there are others in this vast expanse, called the Internet, who are reading these words and actually changing their minds. Those are the people to whom I am appealing.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
And as to onus, the onus to support a proposition and provide its foundation is on whoever states the proposition, of course. If you state that gay marriage is harmful to society, the onus is on you to show just how.[/quote]
By using this faulty piece of logic anyone would be able to change any sort of law or societal institution on a whim. As long as someone else gives no good reason in the opinion of a minority then change would come. Actually accepting this travesty of logic would lead to utter chaos in any civilized society.
In any discussion of changing social policy, the burden of proof to justify it must be on those advocating the change.
In the case of demands for legalizing same sex marriage, the burden is on those advocating this policy change to make even a minimal case that it will not hurt the rights of the majority to pass on a healthy society to future generations.
While it may not always be possible to make such a case conclusively, in the face of common sense, logic, historical examples and a growing body of social science research that legalizing same sex marriage would undermine marriage and the natural family, advocates of same sex marriage have a particularly heavy burden on this issue. Significantly, they never even try to make their case in this context.
We initiate change in order to better society, to improve the whole. And as I have stated: No one to date has ever given a good reason to change the institution of marriage, including you!
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Now please tell me how allowing same sex unions would enhance the greater good of our society.
By creating a larger number of stable families, and providing a greater number of children with parents in stable marriages than is currently the case.[/quote]
The word “Stability” and Gay couples do not seem to go hand in hand according to the research that I have done:
M. Pollak who authored a study: “Homosexuality in Western Sexuality.”
“The Male Couple” Author David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison.
Perhaps you should reread reasons one, four, six, seven and eight in particularly.
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
Gee, could this be because society does not afford them the same rights as regular couples who are married? Could it be because people such as yourself regard them with distaste and cause them to feel uncomfortable and insecure in their relationships?[/quote]
First of all I do not have a “distaste” for those who choose to have sex with someone of the same gender. I am for fair treatment and equal rights under our current law for all Gay people.
However, how would a “distaste” for someone in that lifestyle lead them to trade sexual partners like trading cards? One does not correlate with the other. In fact, an argument could be made for the reverse! If a multitude of people have a “distaste” for your lifestyle then you may want to show them that you are capable of monogomy.
In fact, does anyones promiscuity rely on someone else’s opinon? I don’t think that makes any sense at all.
As far as not allowing homosexuals the right to marry actually causing their great amount of promiscuity borders on the ridiculous. How many committed heterosexual couples do we currently have who have not (yet) married, but live faithfully with one another?
Promiscuity has more to do with desire than societal norms.
While I agree that this is not as large a sample as should be taken, it is none the less all that we have relative to research, and it looks quite negative for homosexual marriage. This is one more reason why pushing Gay marriage without the proper studies is foolhardy!
However, in defense of the data; Gallup and other credible pollsters were able to predict how 60 million were going to vote in the most recent Presidential election by sampling only 1000 people!
But who is to say that it would? Do you have any evidence that it would?
While you questioned my data, you have still not given me one reason why instituting homosexual marriage would be beneficial to our society.
How does allowing homosexuals the right to marry help our society long term?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
2. We don’t know how one becomes Gay as yet. Granted the powerful Gay lobby wants us to think that people are born that way. However, there is not one shred of evidence to back this up.
[/quote]
In another thread you wrote a similar sentence with “proof” instead of “evidence” so I left you alone because neither side of the argument can be proven at this point.
However, there is certainly more than a shred of evidence to back up the claim that people are born gay.
I know that you read this, so obviously you forgot about it by now. That’s okay, just retract your statement that there’s “not one shred of evidence” that supports the possibility that people are born gay. You’ve stated before that we don’t know if people are born gay or become gay. Why can’t you just stick with that? There’s evidence on both sides of the argument.
In fact, does anyones promiscuity rely on someone else’s opinon? I don’t think that makes any sense at all.
[/quote]
You obviously haven’t known many promiscuous people. Most of them lack support from family, friends and relatives. How many people who have a good family where there is mutual respect would go out and have sex with 9 differnet guys as a teenager? Not too many.
To me it is completely obvious that a relationship is strengthened by a tightly knit group of friends or family who approve of and support a relationship. Presently, I don’t think gays are receiving this type of support, so if their relationships lack stability it is through little fault of their own.
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found,
"few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.
…
Notice that even if this characterization is completely accurate, it doesn’t tell us what percentage of gay males wind up in very long term relationships. Gay males typically have a lot of relationships, until they don’t.[/quote]
According to McWhirter and Mattison “only seven couples (of the 156 studied) have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.”
Also various studies refute your claim that once “paired” homosexuals are then less promiscuous.
“ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!” (everyone of them)
Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of OPPRESSION."
The best studies that we have refute your few examples. You are giving basic “anecdotal” evidence.
The argument draws a small example from perhaps from your personal life with cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion.
Why do you suppose that “Gay men (would) come to marriage with more sexual history?” What does that indicate to you?
Furthermore, how in the world does that “make them more deserving of the rite in God’s eyes?”
Those who are “deserving” of marriage would seem to me those who are truly committed to a monogomous relationship and to the dedication of the family unit which would most probably include children.
Please read this if you have the time:
This is surely not about winning an argument with you, or any of the others who are very much pro Gay marriage. As previously stated; the more credible arguments which are put forth against such a union the more peoples minds are opened to the potential damage to that could very well occur.
The standard line for those who have not given it much thought (and who can with all the other things in your life) is: “Two Gay people getting married doesn’t hurt me.” However, as we can see by my above post; anything that harms society as a whole will indeed harm you eventually. What we need is a long term outlook as to the Gay marriage issue.
Let’s do more studies!
If the above studies that I cited are proven to be wrong by larger more numerous(unbiased) studies, yet to be done, then we can take another look at the situation. Currently all the data that I have seen seem to show that allowing Gay marriage would indeed be a very huge mistake relative to the long term success of our society
[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB wrote:
2. We don’t know how one becomes Gay as yet. Granted the powerful Gay lobby wants us to think that people are born that way. However, there is not one shred of evidence to back this up.
In another thread you wrote a similar sentence with “proof” instead of “evidence” so I left you alone because neither side of the argument can be proven at this point.
However, there is certainly more than a shred of evidence to back up the claim that people are born gay.
I know that you read this, so obviously you forgot about it by now. That’s okay, just retract your statement that there’s “not one shred of evidence” that supports the possibility that people are born gay. You’ve stated before that we don’t know if people are born gay or become gay. Why can’t you just stick with that? There’s evidence on both sides of the argument. [/quote]
I liked the word “evidence” as it means according to webster: “PROOF or testimony.”
Let’s not argue semantics regarding word usage. You like “proof” then that’s fine with me. “Proof” is certainly a more accurate word, so let’s use it!
We can agree that there is no proof in either direction as yet. As I stated previously yet another reason to not allow Gay marriage until we know exactly how someone becomes Gay! At this point in time no one knows, including the best researchers in the field of sexuality.
Let’s make sure that politics does not leap ahead of science in this very important matter of Gay marrige!
Let’s make sure that politics does not leap ahead of science in this very important matter of Gay marrige!
[/quote]
I’ve been well ZEB, thanks for asking. Since we’re talking about marriage, my wife and I just had our one month annivesary yesterday and things are going great.
Please don’t think that I’m inserting politics into this argument at all. You may guess that I’m a social liberal, but you would be wrong to do so. Gay marriage and gay rights in general may be the only issue that I would find myself generally on the liberal side of things.
My attitudes and opinions on these subjects stem from my educational background in psychology and physiology which includes work in peer reviewed research studies, and my work experience since most of my clients are gay.
You know the funny thing about these threads is this: I interact with dozens of gay people on a daily basis, many of whom are very politically aware as you can imagine from the city I work in. However, we’ve been discussing this subject over the last month WAY more than I’ve heard my clients discussing these things in 6 years of work in this area.
[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hello dcb how have you been?
Let’s make sure that politics does not leap ahead of science in this very important matter of Gay marrige!
I’ve been well ZEB, thanks for asking. Since we’re talking about marriage, my wife and I just had our one month annivesary yesterday and things are going great.
Please don’t think that I’m inserting politics into this argument at all. You may guess that I’m a social liberal, but you would be wrong to do so. Gay marriage and gay rights in general may be the only issue that I would find myself generally on the liberal side of things.
My attitudes and opinions on these subjects stem from my educational background in psychology and physiology which includes work in peer reviewed research studies, and my work experience since most of my clients are gay.
You know the funny thing about these threads is this: I interact with dozens of gay people on a daily basis, many of whom are very politically aware as you can imagine from the city I work in. However, we’ve been discussing this subject over the last month WAY more than I’ve heard my clients discussing these things in 6 years of work in this area. [/quote]
Congratulations on your recent marriage! I found that being married is not nearly the lifestyle change that having children is. That seems to change your life forever. It’s all good!
I can imagine that the Gay marriage issue is a pretty hot topic in Washington. Another might be who Bush will pick as the next candidate for Supreme Court nominee.
Are you a practicing Psychologist? If so are you stating that “most of your clients are gay?”
Are you a practicing Psychologist? If so are you stating that “most of your clients are gay?”
If I have this wrong please correct me.
Haha, I can see Zeb’s eyes lighting up behind his computer.[/quote]
I am genuinely curious! However, even if he is a Psychologist and everyone of his clients are Gay that means nothing as it is only anecdotal eveidence.
By the way, I’m still waiting for your list of reasons how homosexual marriage will help society.
NO I’m (fortunately) not a psychologist. My undergraduate degree is in psychology while my graduate degree is in exercise physiology. Depending on who my client(s) are, I’m either a personal trainer, a strength and conditioning coach, or an exercise physiologist. Since I work for myself, I can use whatever term I like.
In regard to my earlier post, I was talking about my personal training clients. I think you missed my point though. What I was saying was that the gay marriage issue really is NOT a hot topic of conversation among the gay people that I know.
NO I’m (fortunately) not a psychologist. My undergraduate degree is in psychology while my graduate degree is in exercise physiology. Depending on who my client(s) are, I’m either a personal trainer, a strength and conditioning coach, or an exercise physiologist. Since I work for myself, I can use whatever term I like.
In regard to my earlier post, I was talking about my personal training clients. I think you missed my point though. What I was saying was that the gay marriage issue really is NOT a hot topic of conversation among the gay people that I know.[/quote]
The argument draws a small example from perhaps from your personal life with cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion.
…
If the above studies that I cited are proven to be wrong by larger more numerous(unbiased) studies, yet to be done, then we can take another look at the situation. Currently all the data that I have seen seem to show that allowing Gay marriage would indeed be a very huge mistake relative to the long term success of our society
[/quote]
Actually the studies show no such thing, they only show that the pattern is different, and that stable relationships can be more open among gays without ill effect. Like I said, it’s not just the plumbing that’s different.
Yes, let’s do more studies. Let’s have some based on decent sized statistical samples. The studies you site cannot prove there are not stable gay relationships. In fact, such relationships do exist. When the argument becomes existential, a single case is no longer anecdotal.
Let’s also have some studies on how many hetero marriages are actually monogamous, and how long the average hetero marriage lasts in this country.
Certainly not all gay men want to raise children. I think those ready to take on that task deserve some help from us, because yes it is very likely that such couples will adopt.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those who are “deserving” of marriage would seem to me those who are truly committed to a monogomous relationship and to the dedication of the family unit which would most probably include children.
[/quote]
This certainly describes some gays. So I guess you are coming out in favor of gay marriage after all?
[quote]CDarklock wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I believe many people have explained how it injures a segment of society. But you just refuse to see it.
No, no, no. Gay marriage doesn’t injure anyone. There is a segment of society, however, which injures themselves with a disproportionate HATRED of gay marriage, fed by a disproportionate INTEREST in gays, inspired by a disproportionate IMPORTANCE placed on certain passages in a certain book.
There is one and only one sentence in the bible which is clearly against homosexuality, from which you are more than welcome to conclude that YOU should not be homosexual.
[/quote]
I never mentioned the bible, but I am sure there would be multiple references to homosexual;s acts in the bible.
I don’t know many people that hate any group of people. I would classify them as a bigot. On the other hand I do recognize when someone is forcing an agenda. Which I believe the homosexual community is doing.
A tactic the homosexual community uses is if you don’t agree with them you supposedly hate them. This seems unfair. Would you agree?
