Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
403

Here’s one from New Zealand…Gee is there anyone from New Zealand on this thread that I might know? Hmmm…

“In a New Zealand study, data were gathered on a range of psychiatric disorders among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people. At the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were at fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide. (Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.)”

404

This is one study that I’ve posted before when homosexuals try to blame “homophobia” for all of their mental problems:

“It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of ?homophobia?. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder (?manic depression?), agoraphobia , obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)”

405

Here’s another study backing up Bell’s work. But it was only published in the New England Journal of Medicine, so it probably doesn’t mean as much as anything that forlife has to say on the topic:

“A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the average non-infected male homosexual has 106 sexual partners per year. Another study released in July of this year found that the average homosexual relationship lasted only 1 years. The study also found that men in homosexual relationships had an average of eight partners per year outside of those relationships.”

Non infected? One can only wonder how many sexual encounters that “infected” homosexuals have. Since about 60% of all new HIV cases are found in the homosexual community they obviously are not being very careful, or even care all that much as one other study that I posted claims.

But…there’s no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals all you have to do is watch Will & Grace to realize that. And many of the pro gay marriage guys on this site get their news from Hollywood, or John Stewart so I’m sure their well informed.

406

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

You did.[/quote]

No, you did.

[/quote]

??

You don’t think you made conflicting statements?

In one post you say gay marriage will sky rocket if legalized nationwide and in another you say less than 1% of the population is interested in gay marriage.[/quote]

Well, from zero to around 10000 would indeed be quite an astonishing rate of growth.

407

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes,

Why are you lecturing me on being honest enough to recognize my own confirmatory bias when I’ve said over and over again that I am as subject to confirmatory bias as anyone else?

Do you recognize your own confirmatory bias? I hope so, because failing to do so would not only prove you ignorant, but a hypocrite to boot.

Given your aversion to homosexuality, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the standard definition of marriage on Wiki as “progressive pablum”? Hello pot, meet kettle.

In your subquote, the very first sentence defines marriage as a contract that creates kinship, i.e., FAMILY. Since we’re discussing definitions:

Kinship
The state or fact of being of kin; family relationship.

Marriage is about two people deciding to become a FAMILY. And yes, families can exist with just 2 people. An infertile straight couple is still a family, even if they never have children. And a gay couple is still a family, whether or not they ever have children.[/quote]

But the straight couple intrinsically possesses the ability to produce children in the first place, and the intact unit further serves to provide the most favorable environment for a child, thus benefitting society at large.

What is your problem with this concept? Why do you keep ignoring the points that have been made, particularly TB’s point that the institution is necessarily overinclusive in order to best foster more of the behavior and arrangements we would like to have?

And speaking of arguing in good faith, you would do well to lay off the fallacious attacks upon my real or imagined motivations or feelings toward gays or whatever social group. You wouldn’t appreciate it if in one of the religious threads I dismissively responded to you, “Given your aversion to religion, is anyone shocked that you would dismiss the legitimate, factual points I’ve raised here? Hello pot, meet kettle.”

I’m happy to engage you and I try and conduct our dialogs respectfully, because I like you. All I ask is the same respect in kind. You don’t appreciate being called a hedonist or heathen or whatever in the religious threads. I don’t appreciate the implied bigotry here. If you want to debate I’d appreciate it if you kept your counterpoints limited to the arguments I’ve provided, and refrain from psychoanalyzing me.

[/quote]

That does not make any sense.

So the idea of marriage is stable couples to rear children, BUT it is necessarily overinclusive in order to foster a climate where families are seen as desirable/the norm, BUT, God forbid not so overinclusive that it would include gay couples?

408

Just a few more:

“A study conducted by two University of Vermont psychology professors contrasted couples living in the newly formed “civil unions” with homosexuals not in unions, and with married heterosexual couples. They found that 21 percent of married men felt that sex outside of marriage was OK. Among homosexuals, 66 percent of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50 percent of homosexual men in civil unions felt the same way.”

Last time I checked the University of Vermont was a very liberal place so I don’t think thy’d be stretching the facts, do you?

"The fact that promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals is dramatically demonstrated in the landmark study conducted by researchers Bell and Weinber in the mid-1970s. The shocking results of their study found that:

43 percent of gay men estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.

79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous.

70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

This type of activity has consequences. Due to their promiscuous lifestyle, homosexual males are 14 times more likely to contract syphilis than male heterosexuals and are thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS."

Okay, that’s enough for now, I have to go train. I’ll wait for the blow back (no pun intended) by the rabid homosexual’s on this site. And of course the liberal and politically correct who helped us get where we are in this country. I’ll post more later.

409

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Here’s another study backing up Bell’s work. But it was only published in the New England Journal of Medicine, so it probably doesn’t mean as much as anything that forlife has to say on the topic:

“A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the average non-infected male homosexual has 106 sexual partners per year. Another study released in July of this year found that the average homosexual relationship lasted only 1 years. The study also found that men in homosexual relationships had an average of eight partners per year outside of those relationships.”

Non infected? One can only wonder how many sexual encounters that “infected” homosexuals have. Since about 60% of all new HIV cases are found in the homosexual community they obviously are not being very careful, or even care all that much as one other study that I posted claims.

But…there’s no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals all you have to do is watch Will & Grace to realize that. And many of the pro gay marriage guys on this site get their news from Hollywood, or John Stewart so I’m sure their well informed.[/quote]

U jelly?

410

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.

411

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.[/quote]

Whaaaaat?

Either marriage is the awesomez, than marrying gay couples will only reinforce the awesomez of marriage.

Or, marriage is all for the procreationez, them y u want infertile couples to marry?

412

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.[/quote]

Whaaaaat?

Either marriage is the awesomez, than marrying gay couples will only reinforce the awesomez of marriage.

Or, marriage is all for the procreationez, them y u want infertile couples to marry?
[/quote]

Answered.

413

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.[/quote]

Whaaaaat?

Either marriage is the awesomez, than marrying gay couples will only reinforce the awesomez of marriage.

Or, marriage is all for the procreationez, them y u want infertile couples to marry?
[/quote]

Answered. [/quote]

No, you have an arbitrary cut off point that makes no sense at all.

In fact, you could pat yourselves on the back that you made marriagew soi desirable that the gays want to be married too.

414

Gay marriage also includes females marrying females.

Why has all the attention been towards men marrying men?

Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?

415

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.[/quote]

Whaaaaat?

Either marriage is the awesomez, than marrying gay couples will only reinforce the awesomez of marriage.

Or, marriage is all for the procreationez, them y u want infertile couples to marry?
[/quote]

Answered. [/quote]

No, you have an arbitrary cut off point that makes no sense at all.

In fact, you could pat yourselves on the back that you made marriagew soi desirable that the gays want to be married too.

[/quote]

False. We’re the only side of the argument without an arbitrary cut off point. We provide a model and purpose for marriage to foster the ordering childbearing and rearing in intact homes with biological parents present. In the meantime your side has state recognized…romance. Or some dumb ‘fairness’ policy which vanishes when I start raising other relationships. Interesting…not exactly a libertarian cause I had ever imagined.

Or, let me guess, being a good libertarian you actually hate both state recognized hetero and homo marriage. But, you feign an arbitrary cut off with homosexual marriage, denying the polyamorous, or even nonsexual relationships as being worthy. You do so knowing that the same arguments (derp, discrimination, derp) for homo-marriage apply to, well, any possible arrangment of consenting adults. Therefore, your real skin in this game is in ulitmately ‘undefining’ state marriage. Have to start somewhere though, right?

And yes, your questions were answered. Multiple times. Even one answered in full in the very post of mine you quoted.

416

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
That does not make any sense.

[/quote]

Yes it does. When trying to reinforce a model for the opposite sexes, the more frequent the model, the more it is encountered. The more it is encountered, the more it is a norm. The more it is a norm the more influential it will be on single males and females. And so every childless hetero-marriage still provides for one man and one woman in a committed relationship. They are then one more reinforcing unit of the norm.

And, what you’ve implied is that our model is best served by denying infertile, the unready or unwilling, marriage. False. This would HARM the model (and it’s ultimate purpose). It would ensure an alternative model for the opposite sexes which would do no less than condone sexual relations outside of marriage. The model is to order the REPRODUCTIVE ACT in an intact and faithful home. It’s a bad objection, when thought is put into it.[/quote]

Whaaaaat?

Either marriage is the awesomez, than marrying gay couples will only reinforce the awesomez of marriage.

Or, marriage is all for the procreationez, them y u want infertile couples to marry?
[/quote]

Answered. [/quote]

No, you have an arbitrary cut off point that makes no sense at all.

In fact, you could pat yourselves on the back that you made marriagew soi desirable that the gays want to be married too.

[/quote]

False. We’re the only side of the argument without an arbitrary cut off point. We provide a model and purpose for marriage to foster the ordering childbearing and rearing in intact homes with biological parents present. In the meantime your side has state recognized…romance. Or some dumb ‘fairness’ policy which vanishes when I start raising other relationships. Interesting…not exactly a libertarian cause I had ever imagined.

Or, let me guess, being a good libertarian you actually hate both state recognized hetero and homo marriage. But, you feign an arbitrary cut off with homosexual marriage, denying the polyamorous, or even nonsexual relationships as being worthy. You do so knowing that the same arguments (derp, discrimination, derp) for homo-marriage apply to, well, any possible arrangment of consenting adults. Therefore, your real skin in this game is in ulitmately ‘undefining’ state marriage. Have to start somewhere though, right?

And yes, your questions were answered. Multiple times. Even one answered in full in the very post of mine you quoted.[/quote]

Of course I want states out of the marriage business, BUT if the state arbitrarily bestows “rights” it becomes a question of fairness.

417

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]

Did you follow the thread?

418

[quote]orion wrote:

Of course I want states out of the marriage business…[/quote]

Say no more.

419

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Of course I want states out of the marriage business…[/quote]

Say no more.

[/quote]

So?

It is in the marriage business after all => fairness.

420

[quote]orion wrote:

BUT if the state arbitrarily bestows “rights” it becomes a question of fairness.

[/quote]

Those poor blind folk. When will we license them to drive?

421

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< Is it just the man on man action that bothers you anti-gay marriage posters?[/quote]Not for me. Romans 1:24-27 [quote]24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.[/quote] Women are mentioned first and then “likewise” the men.

422

Take note, libertarian actually stumping for a widened governmental presence (even wider, since he’d deny no imaginative arrangement of consenting adults a state recognized marriage) within the population. And, get this, in the name of ‘fairness.’