[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
All studies done on marriage state that when a relationship is monogamous it is more stable than when it is not. If you are claiming that homosexuals do not have to be monogamous in order to have a stable relationship I strongly disagree.
I’m saying that a study done on heterosexual marriages does not clearly apply to homosexual marriages.
For that matter, common sense about what works best in heterosexual marriages does not clearly apply to homosexual marriages.
Fortunately for heterosexual marriages, actual monogamy is not necessarily required for stability, even though it may be helpful.[/quote]
Then I guess Gays don’t need to be married do they?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why would we march head strong into expanding the definition of marriage not knowing for sure that it would not harm society?
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Marriage has changed a lot even in our own culture. Nobody ever knew for sure what was going to happen as a result of any of these changes.
In each case the old ways didn’t really work well anymore. So things got changed.
Every now and again a change isn’t so good. Like prohibition, for example. Well, if things don’t work they get changed again.
Does that dispel any of your concern?[/quote]
Please state specifically the “changes” to which you refer. Otherwise, I know of no civilized culture that allowed homosexuals to marry. (Obviously the law has been changed in three countries, not refering to that).
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
As I stated previously yet another reason to not allow Gay marriage until we know exactly how someone becomes Gay!
In point of fact, we don’t know how anybody becomes hetero either.
But we do know that a child raised in a healthy hetersexual environment will turn out well.
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
This is already a lopsided statement by the fact that you said that the heterosexual environment was “healthy”. No such condition was stipulated for the homosexual couple.[/quote]
Exactly! We have no idea if their exists a “healthy” environment for children who are brought up by a homosexual couple. If you think there is show me your proof.
We don’t know if every hetersexual environment is health. However, we do know that for the past 5000 years this is the way it has been done and we, as a civilization, have progressed. We have no good data showing us that homosexuals will make good parents, given childrens special needs. We do have some studies showing that they might not make good parents however.
Your anecdotal example, while I’m sure accurate does not speak to the problem as a whole. We need more studies. The study done with 156 homosexual couples shows that they are indeed very unstable!
I would agree with your first thought. However, I do want to see more studies.
You think somehow that homosexual couples are more honest than hetersexual couples? I would not even venture a guess either way on that one.
Exactly! We have no idea if their exists a “healthy” environment for children who are brought up by a homosexual couple. If you think there is show me your proof.
[/quote]
I guess you didn’t read Makkun’s post before responding to this?
[quote]makkun wrote:
Just a few facts and sources. I thought it was time to add some current scientific views to the discussion, as I am a bit unhappy with some of the “truths” that have been stated in the threads on homosexuality.[/quote]
Well…welcome to the debate makkun
[quote]Most links will lead to secondary sources, with quite a list of primary sources to follow up (especially in the latter part of the post). My annotations shall be in italics
Sorry to the Mod - I tried to cut as much as possible.
However, are we to do what animals do? Are we to eat our young as well? What comparison are you trying to make?
What the American Psychological Association has to say:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
This would certainly pour cold water on the powerful Gay lobby who claims (with zero proof) that people are born that way. Another reason to not allow Gay couples to adopt!
[quote]There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.[/quote]
Precisely, we simply don’t know do we?
Another claim by this organization that people are not born that way, but “develop” it. Makes sense to me, but who knows for sure without more data?
What would they say to the thousands who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality? This is very interesting to me.
[quote]Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.[/quote]
I cannot accept this piece of information without first seeing who did the study and how involved it was. Do you have data to back this up?
That is an interesting point which I have not done much research on. However, since you posted this I have been reading some information. I cannot personally testify as to the quality of information. However, they do have study data etc. Take a look at it. I’m sure anyone who is pro homosexual unions will not like it. Those who are against homosexual unions will have yet more ammunition. Keep in mind I make no judgements based on this data. However, since you brought it up here it is:
[quote]Researchers have purported to examine twins, siblings, adopted children, and brains of people who are homosexual and those who are not.
…
Although the question of a biological basis for homoeroticism has, in recent years, seen increased interest and attention, such research consistently does not consider the complexities of orientation, such as emotional attraction, behavior, and other criteria that constitute sexual orientation in Klein?s model. Most of the classification methods for identifying orientation of subjects in these studies are overly simplified. Although there may be biological precursors to orientation, no well-designed, appropriately controlled study has been done to support that conclusion.[/quote]
They sure go a long way to state that no one knows for sure how someone becomes a homosexual! Then again they are in acedmia…lol
[quote]Ignoring the basic fact that there is no definition of what ?a homosexual? or ?a bisexual? person is, until the mid-1990s the most-often cited figure for incidence of homosexuality came from the research of Kinsey and associates carried out in the 1940s. These data have been used to estimate the number of homoerotic people in the population without any indication of the simplistic nature of the definition. The commonly cited figure that 10 percent of American men are homosexual is a combination of Kinsey?s finding that 4 percent of his sample were exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) and 6 percent were predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5) (Kinsey et al. 1948). His data on homosexual activity in women indicated approximately 9 percent were either exclusively or predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) (Kinsey et al. 1953).
Laumann et al. (1994) found that almost 3 percent of their subjects were homosexual. Although these two sets of figures may, at first, seem at odds, the 1994 figure had a 1 percent error rate, and the Kinsey figure for exclusive homosexuality was 4 percent, so the two major studies do not differ greatly. There were some other problems with the 1994 study, such as the use of females as interviewers and the tendency of males in this culture to deny homosexual activity, even in anonymous questionnaires, but especially in face-to-face contact with anyone else; however, even with those design problems, the numbers are similar (Schmalz 1993).[/quote]
Are we debating how many homosexuals are in the US population now? Well…I do know that Kinsey has been debunked! His initial 10% figure is wrong (which I think they even admitted) according to the Gay population. As approximately 2% of males claim to be Gay and about 1.5% of females claim to be lesbian. There are plenty of studies to back this up, I’m not sure it’s all that debatable.
[quote]b]Anal Sex[/b]
Contrary to popular belief, anal sex is not an activity exclusive to the male homosexual, nor is it the activity most often practiced by him. Although statistics on this subject are suspect, some investigators report that 47 percent of predominantly heterosexual men and 61 percent of the women have tried anal intercourse. Thirteen percent of married couples reported having anal intercourse at least once a month. Approximately 37 percent of both men and women have practiced oral-anal contact. A study of homosexual men revealed that only 20 percent had experience as inserter and 18 percent as insertee.
LOL “inserter” “insertee”…okay that just struck me as funny…sorry. Um…who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? This debate is not about that, it’s about homosexual marriage.
[quote]Contemporary Extramarital Sex
Random samples by different pollsters indicate 40 percent to 47 percent of men and 26 percent to 32 percent of women have experienced EMS at least once. Since 79.3 percent of the population considers EMS to always be wrong, there is reason to suspect that random surveys may underestimate the incidence of EMS. Research showing that initial admissions of EMS by 30 percent of a sample doubled to 60 percent during psychotherapy support for this possibility. Conversely, higher survey results like Cosmopolitan’s 69 percent EMS rate for women over age 35 reported by Wolfe, and Playboy’s EMS rates for those over age 50 and 70 percent for men and 65 percent for women reported by Peterson, et al., may be biased by readers’ self-selection.
…
Cuber and Harroff reported that many people in intrinsic-vital marriages engaged in extramarital sex with their spouses’ knowledge or approval. Among the 40 percent of women with EMS experience who were positive their husbands knew, 42 percent stated it caused no problems. Similarly, Hunt found that nearly half of the divorced people with EMS experience did not believe EMS played a role in their divorces. However, Hunt discounted their opinion and the statements of the “many” still married couples who reported no adverse effects from EMS, stressing instead the 50 percent who were affected and pervasive “unseen emotional decay.”
Yes, I would agree that cheating spouses have a greater incidence of divorce and “unseen emotional decay.” Sad isn’t it? Can you imagine if homosexuals were allowed to marry? According to one study:
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter 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 a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!
Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of OPPRESSION."
This does not improve on the institution of marriage!
Thank you for that tid bit. What an unhealthy environment to raise a child in!
There is no reason for this sort of prejiduce to ever occur. It’s unfortunate but some people are simply mean spirited!
True.
[quote]Within this context, those who are identified as homophobic frequently do not label this condition as dysfunctional or experience it as irrational given their environment.
There seems to be agreement that for some people a phobic response (as traditionally defined) to homosexuality is present but that this fails to account for or accurately describe the complex ways homophobia is experienced by the majority of people. Nonetheless, homophobia is still the commonly accepted term to describe the range of feelings and attitudes that often result in behaviors such as avoidance, joking and derision, violence and homicide, self-hate, and suicide.[/quote]
We have discussed at great length the term “homophobia.” Some are indeed afraid of homosexuals. Others are sickened by what they (imagine) that they do. Either way, It’s time to put away the prejiduce and stop hating for whatever reason!
I don’t think these are good examples do you?
Those pesky scientists stick their nose into everything! LOL
In other words no one knows for sure how people become homosexuals…
[quote]The first carefully controlled study of whether sexual orientation tends to run in families was conducted by Pillard and Weinrich, who reported that 22 percent of the homosexual men in their sample reported homosexual brothers, whereas heterosexual men reported only 4 percent homosexual brothers. A corresponding statement held true for homosexual women (unpublished data). This study was the first to confirm the reports of the original subjects by actual inquiries to the brothers and sisters themselves. This finding was confirmed and extended in a recent study by Bailey and Pillard. These workers chose not an ordinary sample of gay men but a sample of homosexual male twins, finding that about half of the co-twins of monozygous (“identical” or single-egg) homosexual twins were also homosexual, whereas only 22 percent of the co-twins of dizygous (“fraternal” or two-egg) homosexual twins were likewise.
Further analyses strongly suggested a genetic component to sexual orientation, even in the light of many different parameter values used in their models and no significant evidence that the environments of monozygotic twins were more alike than the environments of dizygotic twins (which otherwise might explain their results). Essentially the same results were obtained in a more recent study of female twins conducted by the same authors.
Note that even in these so-called “biological” studies, substantial amounts of environmental variability were detected. For example, in the Bailey and Pillard twin study, 48 percent of the co-twins of monozygotic homosexual male twins were heterosexual?not a small percentage. Remarkably, very few proponents of the environmental view have shown any interest in examining the environmental contribution to sexual orientation, although it must exist.
Accordingly, any comprehensive theory of the development of the various sexual orientations must take into account genetic, hormonal, early childhood, and later experiences. One such theory is the periodic-table model of the gender transpositions, which assumes that there are not one but at least two underlying dimensions to sexual orientation (as well as other gender transpositions such as transvestism and transsexualism). However, even this theory does not propose a specific mechanism by which sexual orientations are differentiated[quote]
In other words, no one knows for sure how one becomes a homosexual…
Exactly! We have no idea if their exists a “healthy” environment for children who are brought up by a homosexual couple. If you think there is show me your proof.
I guess you didn’t read Makkun’s post before responding to this?[/quote]
There is no proof in Makkun’s post which would cause anyone to change the institution of marriage. Perhaps you didn’t read Makkun’s post!
All I am asking for is some solid proof that Gay couples are responsible enough to get married and to raise children. And I am asking for proof which demonstrates children will be raised properly in such an environment.
Do you have such evidence? If you do please post it.
If you are going to quote a source make sure that the source actually quotes the spcific study data etc. Makkuns source failed to do this.
For example anyone can claim: “There have been extensive studies and Gay couples have been shown to be great parents.”
That says nothing!
I want to see who did the study and specific results. Furthermore, I want to make sure that the study was done by an unbiased source.
I am not trying to be a hard ass. I’m simply tired of weak arguments which pander to people with no hard evidence. The average person puts more thought into their current training sechedule than they have in Gay marriage. Yet, because it’s cool to be “open and free” claim that homosexual marriage should be allowed.
If you want to change such a powerful societal institution then the onus should be on the party which wants to change the institution to supply the proof that it is a positive change. Would you change your diet (providing you care about it) without any research?
So far I don’t see anything positive about Gay couples marrying or adopting children.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
Sorry, there is a lot of data on this. A fair number of children have been raised to adulthood by homosexual couples. Enough so that many states now allow gay couples who meet certain criteria to adopt children.
Is this one of those “facts” that you are going to through out with no verification?
Please produce thise “unbiased” studies!
[/quote]
How about if we just list the states that permit adoption by stable homosexual couples? If there were any evidence of necessary harm I doubt it could have been overlooked when those policies were put in place.
How come none of the advocates of Gay marriage can tell me why it would be a plus to have gays marry?
[/quote]
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that gays can have stable long-termed relationships, and that children can benefit from being raised by gay parents. So the reason I originally gave you is still valid. We should do it for families, and we should do it for the children. Consider the children, Zeb.
As for the notion that there aren’t children waiting for adoption, see
Foster Care Adoption in the United States
A State-by-State Analysis of Barriers & Promising Approaches
Author(s): Jennifer Ehrle Macomber, Cynthia Andrews Scarcella, Erica H. Zielewski, Rob Geen
According to the most recent statistics available, in the United States in 2002, 129,000 children were in foster care systems nationwide waiting to be adopted. These children found themselves in this circumstance because their parents could no longer provide for their care. Child welfare agencies and courts around the country have made efforts to find families to adopt these children, but significant barriers have continued to impede the process. As a result, many of these children remain in foster care for years without having a place to call home. Moreover, when they age out of care usually at age 18, they are without permanent connections to families needed for success as adults.
Please state specifically the “changes” to which you refer. Otherwise, I know of no civilized culture that allowed homosexuals to marry. (Obviously the law has been changed in three countries, not refering to that).
[/quote]
You’re not referring to that? Whyever not? Because recent events are the end of your favorite argument?
Here’s a nice account of the changes I’m referring to, in today’s NYTimes, no less:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is no proof in Makkun’s post which would cause anyone to change the institution of marriage. Perhaps you didn’t read Makkun’s post!
[/quote]
I read it, and I’m switched if I can figure out what you’re talking about.
Oh. Would you settle for weight of evidence, as opposed to formal proof?
I think this goes back to your imposture as an open-minded person?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I believe that there is a long waiting list for married couples to adopt.
Alas, only to adopt certain children, primarily infants of certain races.
There is a long waiting line of children hoping to be adopted.[/quote]
The long line in our country is due to our social services and foster care programs.
Children (not just infants) are being adopted from Asia, Central America and Eastern Europe while social services blocks people from adopting American children. It is quite sad.
have been sitting on the edge of my seat most of the time, not being able to take part…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…
Well…welcome to the debate makkun
Most links will lead to secondary sources, with quite a list of primary sources to follow up (especially in the latter part of the post). My annotations shall be in italics
Sorry to the Mod - I tried to cut as much as possible.
However, are we to do what animals do? Are we to eat our young as well? What comparison are you trying to make?[/quote]
Nothing much - with this bit just giving a bit of an overview on the research done. My point? Not a dramatic one - homosexual behaviour is not limited to the other humans.
I have to point out that you are - as many others have done - with your “eat our young” comment, point out to the ethically most problematic behavior possible (when confronted with homosexuality). Why not ask: “Why do we use water to wash ourselves, instead of using our tongues?”
[quote]What the American Psychological Association has to say:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.
This would certainly pour cold water on the powerful Gay lobby who claims (with zero proof) that people are born that way. Another reason to not allow Gay couples to adopt!
There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
Precisely, we simply don’t know do we?[/quote]
No, we don’t. But your later comment that it seems to be curable via therapy seems to indicate that you do indeed regard it as an illness. Where is the proof for that? Why don’t we just concentrate on the scientific consensus “we don’t know, but it’s not an illness”?
[quote]…human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience.
Another claim by this organization that people are not born that way, but “develop” it. Makes sense to me, but who knows for sure without more data?
Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
What would they say to the thousands who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality? This is very interesting to me.[/quote]
Sorry, but that is being viewed unethical and ineffective within the scientific community:
Therapy
Although far more common in the past, it is still not rare for some homosexuals to approach psychotherapists with the request to convert their homosexual orientation into a heterosexual one. In a similar vein, it is apparently still the case that homosexual adolescents are more likely to try to commit suicide than heterosexual adolescents because their homosexual feelings seem socially unacceptable, even shameful. This is not a surprise, given the severely antihomosexual attitudes of society, especially the teenage segment.
Although there is still substantial controversy on this matter, it is now widely regarded as unethical, for a variety of reasons, to offer “therapy” to change a sexual orientation. First and foremost, it does not work. There is a long and shameful list of therapists who have made attempts, only to abandon them, sometimes quietly and sometimes with open discussion. For example, a former president of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Gerald Davison, not only founded such a therapeutic school (“Playboy therapy”) but also repudiated it on many occasions after deciding that it did more harm than good and that it would not have been ethical even if it had worked. Another behavior therapist, Kurt Freund, abandoned his form of aversive therapy for homosexuality after a genital measurement device (called a plethysmograph) showed that the “cured” ex-homosexuals remained sexually aroused by images of naked men.
This unfortunate sequence of events is now being repeated in the claims that homosexuality can be cured by religious conversion or other spiritual methods. “Ex-homosexuals” have been followed by “ex-ex-homosexuals,” and there is even a sordid turn of events: on more than one occasion, the men involved in founding and running ex-homosexual ministries have used their followers as sexual partners. Although one cannot, of course, claim that all or even most such ministries are self-deceptive or manipulative, it is chilling to hear managers of such enterprises admitting that homosexuals do not in fact acquire a heterosexual orientation through their programs. It is claimed that the most that can be hoped for is abstinence from homosexual contacts, and perhaps some mild degree of heterosexual arousability?just as an alcoholic cannot be truly cured of the underlying disease of alcoholism. These apologists might pay more attention to Freund’s conclusions:
Almost 20 years ago I started a therapeutic experiment.... his was a long-term study, and these marriages [of homosexuals] were followed up for many years. Virtually not one "cure" remained a cure. The patients had become able to enjoy sexual intercourse with females as well [as males], though much less than with males, but there was no true, lasting change in sexual preference.... Many patients admitted this only much later than they themselves had clearly noted this fact.
It is indeed depressing that these words, published 15 years ago about therapies conducted 20 years before, remain unappreciated by those who would now hold out false hope to those upset by their faith’s rejection of their innermost natures, feelings, and desires.
REFERENCES
Davison, G.C. Constructionism and Morality in Therapy for Homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek and J.D. Weinrich, eds., Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
Freund, K.W. Should Homosexuality Arouse Therapeutic Concern? Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1977), pp. 235-40.
Gonsiorek, J.C. The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek and J.D. Weinrich, eds… Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
Robinson, P. The Modernization of Sex: Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.
[quote]Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent’s sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children’s.
I cannot accept this piece of information without first seeing who did the study and how involved it was. Do you have data to back this up?[/quote]
I was surprised they stated that, and I would have to follow it up, as I also think this might be farfetched in the face of not too much data. But, let’s see what I can find. Might take a moment, but I’m curious on that one.
[quote]Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
That is an interesting point which I have not done much research on. However, since you posted this I have been reading some information. I cannot personally testify as to the quality of information. However, they do have study data etc. Take a look at it. I’m sure anyone who is pro homosexual unions will not like it. Those who are against homosexual unions will have yet more ammunition. Keep in mind I make no judgements based on this data. However, since you brought it up here it is:
This, I would be quite critical about. I have not followed your links yet (3mins left before I have to leave for work), but I have read others before. First of all, I am not sure about the 1-2% claim, then, if we define homosexual behaviour as, well behaviour, and you end up with a very muddied definition of a homosexual perpetrator. As for molestation: if you read criminal statistics (I have done, and I think I actually posted some stuff on this some time ago), you will see that quite a majority of cases mostly involves heterosexually oriented males victimising female family (!) members or are from the immidiate surroundings.
[quote]Researchers have purported to examine twins, siblings, adopted children, and brains of people who are homosexual and those who are not.
…
Although the question of a biological basis for homoeroticism has, in recent years, seen increased interest and attention, such research consistently does not consider the complexities of orientation, such as emotional attraction, behavior, and other criteria that constitute sexual orientation in Klein?s model. Most of the classification methods for identifying orientation of subjects in these studies are overly simplified. Although there may be biological precursors to orientation, no well-designed, appropriately controlled study has been done to support that conclusion.
They sure go a long way to state that no one knows for sure how someone becomes a homosexual! Then again they are in acedmia…lol
Ignoring the basic fact that there is no definition of what ?a homosexual? or ?a bisexual? person is, until the mid-1990s the most-often cited figure for incidence of homosexuality came from the research of Kinsey and associates carried out in the 1940s. These data have been used to estimate the number of homoerotic people in the population without any indication of the simplistic nature of the definition. The commonly cited figure that 10 percent of American men are homosexual is a combination of Kinsey?s finding that 4 percent of his sample were exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6) and 6 percent were predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5) (Kinsey et al. 1948). His data on homosexual activity in women indicated approximately 9 percent were either exclusively or predominantly homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) (Kinsey et al. 1953).
Laumann et al. (1994) found that almost 3 percent of their subjects were homosexual. Although these two sets of figures may, at first, seem at odds, the 1994 figure had a 1 percent error rate, and the Kinsey figure for exclusive homosexuality was 4 percent, so the two major studies do not differ greatly. There were some other problems with the 1994 study, such as the use of females as interviewers and the tendency of males in this culture to deny homosexual activity, even in anonymous questionnaires, but especially in face-to-face contact with anyone else; however, even with those design problems, the numbers are similar (Schmalz 1993).
Are we debating how many homosexuals are in the US population now? Well…I do know that Kinsey has been debunked! His initial 10% figure is wrong (which I think they even admitted) according to the Gay population. As approximately 2% of males claim to be Gay and about 1.5% of females claim to be lesbian. There are plenty of studies to back this up, I’m not sure it’s all that debatable.[/quote]
Kinsey has been corrected by newer models (a standard scientific procedure), but if you read the quote and follow the link, you will see that a claim of ~4% of men continuosly displaying homosexual behaviour seems realistic, with a smaller portion on the female side.
[quote]b]Anal Sex[/b]
Contrary to popular belief, anal sex is not an activity exclusive to the male homosexual, nor is it the activity most often practiced by him. Although statistics on this subject are suspect, some investigators report that 47 percent of predominantly heterosexual men and 61 percent of the women have tried anal intercourse. Thirteen percent of married couples reported having anal intercourse at least once a month. Approximately 37 percent of both men and women have practiced oral-anal contact. A study of homosexual men revealed that only 20 percent had experience as inserter and 18 percent as insertee.
LOL “inserter” “insertee”…okay that just struck me as funny…sorry. Um…who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? This debate is not about that, it’s about homosexual marriage.[/quote]
No, it’s not. It’s initially about the question if if homosexuality is defined by biology, can people be made “responsible” for it.
And - I do remember quotes being posted on the “dangers” of homosexual activity earlier in the thread. As I said, just some facts and sources…
BTW - yeah, “insertee” is kinda funny.
[quote]Contemporary Extramarital Sex
Random samples by different pollsters indicate 40 percent to 47 percent of men and 26 percent to 32 percent of women have experienced EMS at least once. Since 79.3 percent of the population considers EMS to always be wrong, there […] adverse effects from EMS, stressing instead the 50 percent who were affected and pervasive “unseen emotional decay.”
Yes, I would agree that cheating spouses have a greater incidence of divorce and “unseen emotional decay.” Sad isn’t it? Can you imagine if homosexuals were allowed to marry? According to one study:[/quote]
They would do more or less exactly what heterosexual couples do: lie, cheat and neglect their children and get divorces - just like the heterosexual couples do. If we follow this argument, we should perhap consider banning the hetero-marriage. The main thrust towards gay marriage is that gay people may be just as good as spouses, as heteros; not better.
[quote]In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter 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 a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!
Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of OPPRESSION."
This does not improve on the institution of marriage![/quote]
I think it is quite irrelevant, as I showed earlier, hetero couples seem to be displaying very similar modes of behaviour. You see, that was my point.
ZEB, I know that you truly believe in the institution of marriage - but I think that what you envision does not exist anymore, except for a few exceptions (like my parents, you and your wife, and a few others). But mostly people’s (of all sexual orientations and proclivities) behaviour, historically and now, has been anti-thetical to the moral values of marriage. The argument for gay marriage is finally a legal one, asking for the same rights (to fuck up) as the majority of heteros do. If you wish to defend marriage as an institution, defend it against the zombie-army of adulterers, child-neglecters and spouse-beaters who end up with their third marriage before 40 - they are the main problem, not the few gay people who want to marry. And - on that fight, I’d be happy to back you up, as there, I see the main decay of morals with our western societies.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We don’t know how a child brought up by two homosexuals will turn out. And that my friend is the entire point!
Sorry, there is a lot of data on this. A fair number of children have been raised to adulthood by homosexual couples. Enough so that many states now allow gay couples who meet certain criteria to adopt children.
Is this one of those “facts” that you are going to through out with no verification?
Please produce thise “unbiased” studies!
How about if we just list the states that permit adoption by stable homosexual couples? If there were any evidence of necessary harm I doubt it could have been overlooked when those policies were put in place.[/quote]
Please take a look at those states for us and come back with a full report!
How come none of the advocates of Gay marriage can tell me why it would be a plus to have gays marry?
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that gays can have stable long-termed relationships, and that children can benefit from being raised by gay parents.[/quote]
Now endgamer you know I’m going to ask you where you dervied such information. Unless this is simply your opinion based on your circle of friends. Which is it?
Foster Care Adoption in the United States
A State-by-State Analysis of Barriers & Promising Approaches
Author(s): Jennifer Ehrle Macomber, Cynthia Andrews Scarcella, Erica H. Zielewski, Rob Geen
According to the most recent statistics available, in the United States in 2002, 129,000 children were in foster care systems nationwide waiting to be adopted. These children found themselves in this circumstance because their parents could no longer provide for their care. Child welfare agencies and courts around the country have made efforts to find families to adopt these children, but significant barriers have continued to impede the process. As a result, many of these children remain in foster care for years without having a place to call home. Moreover, when they age out of care usually at age 18, they are without permanent connections to families needed for success as adults.[/quote]
These children are “Waiting for adoption” because most who adopt want a “baby” not a 10 or 12 year old. It’s unfortunate! However, would Gay couples want a teen to adopt? Also, since they comprise (Gays) only about 1% to 2% of the population how many of them would have to marry in order to actually make a difference in that figure? If in fact Gays adopting would be positive…we just don’t know that yet do we?
Please state specifically the “changes” to which you refer. Otherwise, I know of no civilized culture that allowed homosexuals to marry. (Obviously the law has been changed in three countries, not refering to that).
You’re not referring to that? Whyever not? Because recent events are the end of your favorite argument?
Here’s a nice account of the changes I’m referring to, in today’s NYTimes, no less:
All I could see on your link was the following:
“Traditional marriage, with its long history, was upended by heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians simply noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.”
Gee I wonder what they mean by “new norms.” Apparently they perviece something that might not be there.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There is no proof in Makkun’s post which would cause anyone to change the institution of marriage. Perhaps you didn’t read Makkun’s post!
I read it, and I’m switched if I can figure out what you’re talking about.
Oh. Would you settle for weight of evidence, as opposed to formal proof?
I think this goes back to your imposture as an open-minded person?[/quote]
I always get a kick out of liberals who claim others (more conservative types) are closed minded. Gee, I don’t see them switching positions. Are they closed minded too?
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP US WE ARE ALL SOOOO CLOSED MINDED…Ha ha
Actually, I think it refers more to your postion as a closed minded person!
[quote]makkun wrote:
However, are we to do what animals do? Are we to eat our young as well? What comparison are you trying to make?
Nothing much - with this bit just giving a bit of an overview on the research done. My point? Not a dramatic one - homosexual behaviour is not limited to the other humans.
I have to point out that you are - as many others have done - with your “eat our young” comment, point out to the ethically most problematic behavior possible (when confronted with homosexuality). Why not ask: “Why do we use water to wash ourselves, instead of using our tongues?” ;-)[/quote]
I like that one too!
[quote]Precisely, we simply don’t know do we?
No, we don’t. But your later comment that it seems to be curable via therapy seems to indicate that you do indeed regard it as an illness. Where is the proof for that? Why don’t we just concentrate on the scientific consensus “we don’t know, but it’s not an illness”?[/quote]
If we don’t know why people become Gay and we are truly keeping an open mind, then it might be something that could be changed, if the person wanted to. Even if there is partly a genetic reason. What if there are some people who might be partly “genetically determined” to steal? Do they have to act on this? Furthermore, with the proper therapy do they have less of a desire to steal? Could the desire be abandoned altogether?
I am not making this comparison to in any way denegrate homosexuality. However there is a large body of people who claim that their behavior has changed due to therapy.
Do I believe this? I think it has at least as much credibility as the “it’s all genetic” theory. It appears that there is some success using therapy techniques with people who truly want to change. Also, it certainly does no harm!
"Is reorientation therapy harmful? For the participants in our study, Spitzer notes, there was no evidence of harm. “To the contrary,” he says, “they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself.” And because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, Spitzer said, the American Psychiatric Association should stop applying a double standard in its discouragement of reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.
Furthermore, Spitzer wrote in his conclusion, “the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions.”
“Today, new studies place the homoerotic drive in better perspective by showing us that it originates from the search for health and wholeness. Many homosexuals are attracted to other men and their maleness because they are striving to complete their own gender identification. (Something that might not have been developed during childhood?) From this perspective, we now better understand the nature of the homosexual person’s struggle. And with this understanding, we can offer more than tolerance, but–for those who seek it–hope for healing. More than civil rights, we can offer a way toward wholeness.”
Theories do abound on this very interesting topic!
[quote]What would they say to the thousands who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality? This is very interesting to me.
Sorry, but that is being viewed unethical and ineffective within the scientific community:[/quote]
If you told me that man cannot fly by flapping his arms. Then you proved that by demonstrating that no one had ever flown by doing so, I would certainly have to agree! However, what do can you personally say to the 20% (or so) who have undergone therapy and left homosexuality?
Do you tell them that they have not really changed? Do you tell them to forget it a few politically correct egg heads who have charge of the APA say it’s impossible so that just cannot be? The very first time in the history of the APA a vote was taken by the APA relative to homosexuality. That was the very first time that that organization left science behind and opted for a political decision. Why did they vote to include Gay behavior as acceptable, taking it off the list of deviant acts? When in fact there was no science to prove it?
Here is a fact: We really don’t know why anyone becomes Gay! If you and others who hold your view really do believe that then an open mind should be kept, especially for those who currently view themselves as homosexual but want to make a change!
Are they entitled to happiness, or are they too supposed to knuckle under to the politically correct?
"Political Correctness, Sensitivity and Diversity
Cummings and O’Donohue conclude that psychology has surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness. They offer the following examples: APA’s support for absolving responsibility for aberrant behavior when it is “hardwired”; the broadening of the concept of victimology where “everyone is a victim, but no one is crazy”; and the reformulation of psychiatric diagnosis because of pressure from activists (p. 8).
The author’s view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.
Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).
The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a “proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.” Cummings “watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research” (p. 9).
That is an interesting point which I have not done much research on. However, since you posted this I have been reading some information. I cannot personally testify as to the quality of information. However, they do have study data etc. Take a look at it. I’m sure anyone who is pro homosexual unions will not like it. Those who are against homosexual unions will have yet more ammunition. Keep in mind I make no judgements based on this data. However, since you brought it up here it is:
Yes, I’m sure that you are correct relative to the “majority.” However, since homosexuals comprise only about 2% of the population IF they are responsible for fully one third of all molestation of boys then obviously that is a disproportionate amount of occurrences to their total in the population!
Honestly, other than the ridiculous early Kinsey figure of 10% (which shows more of an agenda than anything else) I have not read any figures which claimed the homosexual population was higher than 2% for men and 1.5% for lesbians.
I think the important part is that we both agree that Kinsey has been refuted!
[quote][quote]b]Anal Sex[/b]
Contrary to popular belief, anal sex is not an activity exclusive to the male homosexual, nor is it the activity most often practiced by him. Although statistics on this subject are suspect, some investigators report that 47 percent of predominantly heterosexual men and 61 percent of the women have tried anal intercourse. Thirteen percent of married couples reported having anal intercourse at least once a month. Approximately 37 percent of both men and women have practiced oral-anal contact. A study of homosexual men revealed that only 20 percent had experience as inserter and 18 percent as insertee.
LOL “inserter” “insertee”…okay that just struck me as funny…sorry. Um…who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? This debate is not about that, it’s about homosexual marriage.
No, it’s not. It’s initially about the question if if homosexuality is defined by biology, can people be made “responsible” for it.
And - I do remember quotes being posted on the “dangers” of homosexual activity earlier in the thread. As I said, just some facts and sources. BTW - yeah, “insertee” is kinda funny.[/quote]
Let me put this another way: I personally don’t care what two consenting adults do in private! The majority of the population (according to the latest polling data) agrees with me on this. If someone else has a problem with that I think that they are the ones who need to seek therapy. Either that or simply shut up and mind their own business! My only interest is really the marriage issue. Homosexual marriage is something that effects the entire society. Hence, I and the majority of Americans (67%) are not in favor of it, at this time.
[quote]Contemporary Extramarital Sex
Random samples by different pollsters indicate 40 percent to 47 percent of men and 26 percent to 32 percent of women have experienced EMS at least once. Since 79.3 percent of the population considers EMS to always be wrong, there […] adverse effects from EMS, stressing instead the 50 percent who were affected and pervasive “unseen emotional decay.”
Yes, I would agree that cheating spouses have a greater incidence of divorce and “unseen emotional decay.” Sad isn’t it? Can you imagine if homosexuals were allowed to marry? According to one study:
They would do more or less exactly what heterosexual couples do: lie, cheat and neglect their children and get divorces - just like the heterosexual couples do. If we follow this argument, we should perhap consider banning the hetero-marriage. The main thrust towards gay marriage is that gay people may be just as good as spouses, as heteros; not better.[/quote]
According to the following they would be far worse than they typical man/woman marrige:
In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter 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 a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years.
Stated another way, ALL COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!
Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of OPPRESSION."
This does not improve on the institution of marriage!
You cannot compare the typical heterosexual couple and their promiscuity with what occurs with in the homosexual community. You cannot discount this piece of information:
“ALL (GAY) COUPLES WITH A RELATIONSHIP LASTING MORE THAN FIVE YEARS INCORPORATED SOME PROVISION FOR OUTSIDE SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS!”
Again, this further harms the institution of marriage.
Even if that were true why would you want to make a bad thing worse!
If that were the case then why do homosexuals want to marry? If the institution is not going to be respected anyway? Is it all about money?
As Boston Barrister pointed out in one of his posts not long ago: The 50% divorce rate which is often quoted is quite wrong relative to real working percentages. This figure includes those who are on their third and fourth marriage as well as all the others.
The individuals who have been married multiple times skew the actual divorce rate which is probably no higher than 35% at best.
Marriage is still the best and strongest social institution which our civilization provides. To allow this to be experiemented with before all of the facts are in would be a horrible and probable very costly mistake!
I am merely asking that those who think it is a fine idea to wait until all the facts are in before attempting to sound open minded for the sake of it.
Thanks for replying Makkun. I can always count on you to raise the level of debate on the forum!
