Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:

I never said they were. I said that by his logic, black and women shouldn’t have been given the right to vote. You could deny rights to any minority group with that excuse.

You could, but you’d be wrong. But you make the same mistake over and over - you assume that every “minority group” as you conceive of it is entitled to the same logical “equal right” as race or gender.

Incorrect. For purposes of marriage, straight relationships and gay relationships are demonstratively unequal, given what marriage is about as a public policy.

Gay marriage is not an equal right - it isn’t one under the Constitution, and our Republic has never had it. Gay marriage advocates would do well to humble their arguments and make the case that gays need a “new institution” rather than constantly insist that they are being denied an existing one - otherwise, they will continue to be humiliated at the polls.
[/quote]

You’d have more of a point if marriage were understood only as a public policy intended to give incentive to couples with children to stay together, but it isn’t.

382

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Although, the piece-of-shit administration did try to make it a federal issue by funding abstinence-only education and not funding any other type.

And it has unfortunately been pretty successful. A coercive, ridiculous use of federal power to control something that should be left to state taxpayers.

They’d funded sex education before that.[/quote]

Yeah. But as far as I know, this was the first time the federal government conditioned funding on teaching a particular view no matter how sharply the State’s contituents opposed it. Federal intrusiveness and coercion at its best.

383

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Even in places like California, there is a huge backlash and discrimination and hatred every day.

Discrimination may have something to do with it, but there’s no data to support widespread homosexual abuse. There were 1500 anti-gay crimes last year out of a US population of over 300 million.

I think the majority of “discrimination” they claim to experience stems from the projection of their anxieties and depressions over risky their behavior onto others. Straights make a great scapegoat.

Go down south and walk around holding hands with a guy. I’m sure you’ll be treated just the same as you would otherwise, and you’ll have first hand proof that all of the “discrimination” gays face is just them bein mean to you poor nice straight folk.

True. Plus, the position that there’d be no marked increased incidences of depression and anxiety absent overt violence makes no sense. Being hated and reviled is certainly reason enough to cause psychological issues whether or not your face gets bashed in.[/quote]

So far, your anecdotes are your data. I’m willing to believe that there is “widespread discrimination” out there, but I would need some more conclusive evidence.

One way to prove such a thing would be to look for an income gap. There does appear to be an income gap, but not all of the biases are accounted for, and not many studies have been done that try to adequately control for all of the variables.

Much hay is made over the Badgett study, but I’m wondering if she factored in total hours worked by gay vs straight heterosexual men. She mentions the “gender gap” in incomes between heterosexual males and females, and this is largely accounted for by the fact that heterosexual females put in fewer hours.

There is a paucity of data out there. If there are studies that control for the total number of hours worked as well as education levels that STILL show gay men making less, then that would be evidence for discrimination at the workplace, in my view.

Here was another study suggesting a gay income gap for partnered couples, but it’s based on 2000 census data and it isn’t very much of a gap. I also couldn’t get ahold of the methodology:
http://www.urban.org/publications/900631.html

384

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The correct response is to advocate that male homosexuals be aware of the increased risk of STIs with their sexual behavior, encouraged to use safe sex practices, and get tested regularly.

At this point you’d have to be a moron to not fully grasp the fact that unprotected sex can lead to being HIV positive. But homosexuals still don’t get it.

According to the Center for Disease Control the rise in HIV/AIDS in “men who have sex with men” has risen 11% in 2005 (latest stat) over 2001.Homosexuals made up 68% of all men living with HIV in 2005.

[/quote]

Could you put up a link for that CDC data?

385

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Even in places like California, there is a huge backlash and discrimination and hatred every day.

Discrimination may have something to do with it, but there’s no data to support widespread homosexual abuse. There were 1500 anti-gay crimes last year out of a US population of over 300 million.

I think the majority of “discrimination” they claim to experience stems from the projection of their anxieties and depressions over risky their behavior onto others. Straights make a great scapegoat.

Go down south and walk around holding hands with a guy. I’m sure you’ll be treated just the same as you would otherwise, and you’ll have first hand proof that all of the “discrimination” gays face is just them bein mean to you poor nice straight folk.

True. Plus, the position that there’d be no marked increased incidences of depression and anxiety absent overt violence makes no sense. Being hated and reviled is certainly reason enough to cause psychological issues whether or not your face gets bashed in.

So far, your anecdotes are your data. I’m willing to believe that there is “widespread discrimination” out there, but I would need some more conclusive evidence.

One way to prove such a thing would be to look for an income gap. There does appear to be an income gap, but not all of the biases are accounted for, and not many studies have been done that try to adequately control for all of the variables.

Much hay is made over the Badgett study, but I’m wondering if she factored in total hours worked by gay vs straight heterosexual men. She mentions the “gender gap” in incomes between heterosexual males and females, and this is largely accounted for by the fact that heterosexual females put in fewer hours.

There is a paucity of data out there. If there are studies that control for the total number of hours worked as well as education levels that STILL show gay men making less, then that would be evidence for discrimination at the workplace, in my view.

Here was another study suggesting a gay income gap for partnered couples, but it’s based on 2000 census data and it isn’t very much of a gap. I also couldn’t get ahold of the methodology:
http://www.urban.org/publications/900631.html

[/quote]

Why do you assume that discrimination necessarily leads to income disparities? Or that this is the only thing that matters? There are gay partners at my firm. They make great money. Why? Because they do great work and make a lot of money for the firm.

But socially, they’ve got it pretty rough as far as I can tell. And we are considered a pretty ‘tolerant’ place. I know I’d probably be a little depressed and anxious if I was a social outcast.

386

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Even in places like California, there is a huge backlash and discrimination and hatred every day.

Discrimination may have something to do with it, but there’s no data to support widespread homosexual abuse. There were 1500 anti-gay crimes last year out of a US population of over 300 million.

I think the majority of “discrimination” they claim to experience stems from the projection of their anxieties and depressions over risky their behavior onto others. Straights make a great scapegoat.

Go down south and walk around holding hands with a guy. I’m sure you’ll be treated just the same as you would otherwise, and you’ll have first hand proof that all of the “discrimination” gays face is just them bein mean to you poor nice straight folk.

True. Plus, the position that there’d be no marked increased incidences of depression and anxiety absent overt violence makes no sense. Being hated and reviled is certainly reason enough to cause psychological issues whether or not your face gets bashed in.

So far, your anecdotes are your data. I’m willing to believe that there is “widespread discrimination” out there, but I would need some more conclusive evidence.

One way to prove such a thing would be to look for an income gap. There does appear to be an income gap, but not all of the biases are accounted for, and not many studies have been done that try to adequately control for all of the variables.

Much hay is made over the Badgett study, but I’m wondering if she factored in total hours worked by gay vs straight heterosexual men. She mentions the “gender gap” in incomes between heterosexual males and females, and this is largely accounted for by the fact that heterosexual females put in fewer hours.

There is a paucity of data out there. If there are studies that control for the total number of hours worked as well as education levels that STILL show gay men making less, then that would be evidence for discrimination at the workplace, in my view.

Here was another study suggesting a gay income gap for partnered couples, but it’s based on 2000 census data and it isn’t very much of a gap. I also couldn’t get ahold of the methodology:
http://www.urban.org/publications/900631.html

[/quote]

I agree this would be one way, but I doubt it would be the most revealing. Homosexuality is a tricky thing to guage discrimination of, like religion, because it’s often easy enough to hide. Job applications don’t check sexuality, and personal questions are often considered inappropriate (or easily enough avoided).

387

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Why do you assume that discrimination necessarily leads to income disparities? Or that this is the only thing that matters? There are gay partners at my firm. They make great money. Why? Because they do great work and make a lot of money for the firm.

But socially, they’ve got it pretty rough as far as I can tell. And we are considered a pretty ‘tolerant’ place. I know I’d probably be a little depressed and anxious if I was a social outcast. [/quote]

This is why I suggest, to people who don’t believe it, that they allow themselves to be seen as gay for a little while. Perhaps they’d see firsthand the dirty looks, hostility, fear, and suspecion that gays face, and at very least lose the illusion that it’s just them being oversensitive.

388

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Why do you assume that discrimination necessarily leads to income disparities? Or that this is the only thing that matters?
[/quote]

Researchers themselves draw that conclusion. You have to have some way of quantifying “discrimination,” or it all begins to look like manufactured grievance.

[quote]
There are gay partners at my firm. They make great money. Why? Because they do great work and make a lot of money for the firm.

But socially, they’ve got it pretty rough as far as I can tell. And we are considered a pretty ‘tolerant’ place. I know I’d probably be a little depressed and anxious if I was a social outcast. [/quote]

Lots of people have it “pretty rough” socially - engineers, scientists, nerds and other people who are naturally socially awkward. I’m sure this can cause depression, but we don’t have a grievance industry built up around giving them extra rights and suing people.

389

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Why do you assume that discrimination necessarily leads to income disparities? Or that this is the only thing that matters?

Researchers themselves draw that conclusion. You have to have some way of quantifying “discrimination,” or it all begins to look like manufactured grievance.

There are gay partners at my firm. They make great money. Why? Because they do great work and make a lot of money for the firm.

But socially, they’ve got it pretty rough as far as I can tell. And we are considered a pretty ‘tolerant’ place. I know I’d probably be a little depressed and anxious if I was a social outcast.

Lots of people have it “pretty rough” socially - engineers, scientists, nerds and other people who are naturally socially awkward. I’m sure this can cause depression, but we don’t have a grievance industry built up around giving them extra rights and suing people.

[/quote]

I am not suggesting, nor are most, that the reason gays should have the legal rights granted to married couples is because they are ‘depressed.’

This is all about your argument gays aren’t treated badly and that their is no resulting depression that has nothing to do with genetic abnormalities.

Personally, I do think it’s a genetic abnormality (and not a choice) though I don’t blame them for it nor do I think extending legal benefits threaten the traditional institution of marriage. (this has all been debated. Let’s not go there again).

But a lot of maladjustment is because they are treated badly and are social outcasts for being gay. This is true whether or not they are being beaten or poverty-stricken because of it.

390

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
Not that he hadn’t heard the same stuff from us, but because apparently there are a bunch of numbnuts out there that think “purity pledges” and religious instruction is really going to keep teenagers sexually inactive.

And there you have it. Of course THIS ideology is enforced with tax money. Hey, privatize the schools. You can teach dry-humping as an alternative at your chosen school, for all I care.[/quote]

Teenagers don’t have sex to rebel, they do it because their horny. You can’t stop it and saying “don’t do it” only increases the appeal.

391

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
Not that he hadn’t heard the same stuff from us, but because apparently there are a bunch of numbnuts out there that think “purity pledges” and religious instruction is really going to keep teenagers sexually inactive.

And there you have it. Of course THIS ideology is enforced with tax money. Hey, privatize the schools. You can teach dry-humping as an alternative at your chosen school, for all I care.

Teenagers don’t have sex to rebel, they do it because their horny. You can’t stop it and saying “don’t do it” only increases the appeal.[/quote]

Then teach YOUR child that mutual masturbation is an option.

392

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then teach YOUR child that mutual masturbation is an option. [/quote]

There is nothing to stop you from having your child removed from the class you know. We have that option here, and if the child is removed, they are placed in a another class to catch up or learn new things.

393

Also the people making the laws need to stop pandering to the fucking hardcore conservatives and hardcore liberals, stop sucking their dicks and try thinking for a change.

394

gays marrying creates a mockery of the institution of marriage. don’t hate just my personal views on it

395

[quote]Jessman wrote:
gays marrying creates a mockery of the institution of marriage. don’t hate just my personal views on it[/quote]

How?

396

[quote]Jessman wrote:
gays marrying creates a mockery of the institution of marriage. don’t hate just my personal views on it[/quote]

I wonder sometimes if those who believe in the above would have also thought the same about interracial marriage.

One man or woman marrying an animal is a mockery.

Two human beings marrying is far from it.

397

i can respect your views on that but i don’t believe same sex couples should have the right to marry. its between a man and a woman. i apologize if that offends anyone and not intending too

398

[quote]Jessman wrote:
i can respect your views on that but i don’t believe same sex couples should have the right to marry. its between a man and a women. i apologize if that offends anyone and not intending too[/quote]

How is it a mockery of “normal” marriage?

399

[quote]Jessman wrote:
i can respect your views on that but i don’t believe same sex couples should have the right to marry. its between a man and a women. i apologize if that offends anyone and not intending too[/quote]

Who says it’s strictly between a man and woman?

400

God made Adam and Eve… not Adam and Steve