This is the key question, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I believe there are societal costs and benefits. I am not sure the scale of either.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
Sources, please. Or, once again, are you just making shit up?
[/quote]
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
Sources, please. Or, once again, are you just making shit up?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03090805.html
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73
[/quote]
The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse. FRI believes that published scientific material has a profound impact, both in the United States and around the world
Well…we can trust their non-biased research.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
Sources, please. Or, once again, are you just making shit up?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03090805.html
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73
[/quote]
Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.
Do you have any studies from godhatesfags.com?
harris447:
You apparently don’t like the posters sources because they seem biased to you. I would like you to state exactly where they are wrong and back it up with facts and sources of your own!
After all, a fact is a fact. Matters not who is claiming it if indeed it is true. For example, Sen. Kerry is aloud to claim that the democrats raised more money than the republicans in fiscal 2002.
While republicans may scream that Kerry is biased they have no legitimate response if this fact is true. Therefore, resist the temptation to be an Internet cliche: challenge the facts and scream for sources. And when you get them scream that the sources are biased. Instead why don’t you point out where these facts are wrong by posting something that disputes them.
If you can find nothing that disputes the exact set of facts which the poster has laid out then it might be time to give some credence to this persons facts and sources.
Take a look on the pro homosexual gay sites. I’m sure you can scrounge up something that might make a good counter point.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
…
This is the key question, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I believe there are societal costs and benefits. I am not sure the scale of either.[/quote]
I believe there would be social benefits to gays if civil unions were allowed. And no social cost to the rest of us. I haven’t seen any reliable evidence to suggest otherwise.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“One is Greek the other Hebrew.” Incorrect, they are both Greek. Hey no one’s perfect…
Uh, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
I know, but the New Testament was written in Greek! And the New Testament was the topic of discussion. [/quote]
Ok.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447:
You apparently don’t like the posters sources because they seem biased to you. I would like you to state exactly where they are wrong and back it up with facts and sources of your own!
After all, a fact is a fact. Matters not who is claiming it if indeed it is true. For example, Sen. Kerry is aloud to claim that the democrats raised more money than the republicans in fiscal 2002.
While republicans may scream that Kerry is biased they have no legitimate response if this fact is true. Therefore, resist the temptation to be an Internet cliche: challenge the facts and scream for sources. And when you get them scream that the sources are biased. Instead why don’t you point out where these facts are wrong by posting something that disputes them.
If you can find nothing that disputes the exact set of facts which the poster has laid out then it might be time to give some credence to this persons facts and sources.
Take a look on the pro homosexual gay sites. I’m sure you can scrounge up something that might make a good counter point.
[/quote]
I pointed out the sources because sources do matter. NAMBLA has a whole shitload of facts pertaining to why men should be allowed to fuck boys. Should we go through their facts one-by-one, or just realize, “Hey, it’s NAMBLA. They’re as wrong as wrong can get.”
So, when someone posts something from a group whose sole purpose is to (to put it less-than-bluntly) “smear the queers”, you can discount it whole cloth.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
…
This is the key question, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I believe there are societal costs and benefits. I am not sure the scale of either.
I believe there would be social benefits to gays if civil unions were allowed. And no social cost to the rest of us. I haven’t seen any reliable evidence to suggest otherwise. [/quote]
At a minimum the societal costs would include the economic costs of adding gay lovers to health insurance plans, etc.
Would they pay the same rate for health insurance as heterosexual couples?
What if the statistics indicate it is more expensive to provide gay couples health care than straight couples?
Would insurance companies be allowed to raise the rates for gay couples?
These may seem like silly questions, but I am sure they would be asked and will be controversial.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
I pointed out the sources because sources do matter. NAMBLA has a whole shitload of facts pertaining to why men should be allowed to fuck boys. Should we go through their facts one-by-one, or just realize, “Hey, it’s NAMBLA. They’re as wrong as wrong can get.”
So, when someone posts something from a group whose sole purpose is to (to put it less-than-bluntly) “smear the queers”, you can discount it whole cloth. [/quote]
I have to disagree with you somewhat. Firstly, you are comparing a quasi leagal entity a “NAMBLA” to three other sources which are on thier face far more credible. From what I have seen most of the facts that have been posted are from “pro family” organizations. Is this a bad thing? Are they comparable to NAMBLA simply because they have an “anti-gay marriage” stance? I don’t think so.
Secondly, if you were going to debate NAMBLA I suggest that you indeed do your homework and put forth reasons why it’s wrong (and quite sick) to have sex with minors. Thirty or forty years ago there was no gay marriage debate because people dismissed it on it’s face as being immoral. Something on the order of what you are doing currently with NAMBLA. Not so anymore. Do you think that NAMBLA is hoping that times will indeed continue to change?
At what point do you look up your own facts to refute those of the opposition? At what point do you find credible resources to refute those of the opposition?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?[/quote]
Prof., correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuals ARE allowed to be “bonded”. Bonding may or may not help those items, we’d have to test it to find out. The question really is: “Should the entire nation be forced to accept/take part in it?”
Also, the general line of thought is extremely optimistic. We could encourage gay marriage as well as straight marriage, then outlaw divorce and begin to stem the AIDS epidemic because everyone will be honoring their marital vows. After that, we’ll ship every death row criminal to Texas, where I’m sure they’ll have enough chairs, throw the switch on the lot of them and watch crime rates plummet from the deterant effect. Finally, we’ll outlaw alcohol and watch drunk driving evaporate. Let me know when
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?[/quote]
Prof., correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuals ARE allowed to be “bonded”. Bonding may or may not help those items, we’d have to test it to find out. The question really is: “Should the entire nation be forced to accept/take part in it?”
Also, the general line of thought is extremely optimistic. We could encourage gay marriage as well as straight marriage, then outlaw divorce and begin to stem the AIDS epidemic because everyone will be honoring their marital vows. After that, we’ll ship every death row criminal to Texas, where I’m sure they’ll have enough chairs, throw the switch on the lot of them and watch crime rates plummet from the deterrent effect. Finally, we’ll outlaw alcohol and watch drunk driving evaporate. Let me know when
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
These may seem like silly questions, but I am sure they would be asked and will be controversial.
[/quote]
I like the ones where discrimination works in their favor. i.e. A woman is sexually assaulted, survives, and identifies her attacker as one of two men (it was dark, she couldn’t see, etc., etc.), one is/was in a homosexual marriage and one is/was in a heterosexual marriage. Are the two suspects equal? Or could an arrest and trial take place based on sexual preference? Would it be an acceptable defense? Could one man get off because the other man was equally capable just of a different sexual orientation (reasonable doubt)? Does it matter?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?[/quote]
Actually Prof. the more I think about it, the more you’re premise seems wrong rather than just optimistic:
-
You assume that monogamy is the result of marriage and more marriage will generate more monogamy as well as the inverse (less marriage, less monogamy). I’d almost argue it’s the the other way around for any sexual preference (marriage from and because of monogamy) if not a loose association at best. Not to say that I’m right, just that you’re probably wrong.
-
Considering your assumption above, you further assume that more monogamy means less STDs. This reasoning is even more backwards, it’s not the monogamous homosexuals who are spreading the disease. In both cases, I assume that a married homosexual couple is or at least mostly intends to remain monogamous in the marriage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I pointed out the sources because sources do matter. NAMBLA has a whole shitload of facts pertaining to why men should be allowed to fuck boys. Should we go through their facts one-by-one, or just realize, “Hey, it’s NAMBLA. They’re as wrong as wrong can get.”
So, when someone posts something from a group whose sole purpose is to (to put it less-than-bluntly) “smear the queers”, you can discount it whole cloth.
I have to disagree with you somewhat. Firstly, you are comparing a quasi leagal entity a “NAMBLA” to three other sources which are on thier face far more credible. From what I have seen most of the facts that have been posted are from “pro family” organizations. Is this a bad thing? Are they comparable to NAMBLA simply because they have an “anti-gay marriage” stance? I don’t think so.
Secondly, if you were going to debate NAMBLA I suggest that you indeed do your homework and put forth reasons why it’s wrong (and quite sick) to have sex with minors. Thirty or forty years ago there was no gay marriage debate because people dismissed it on it’s face as being immoral. Something on the order of what you are doing currently with NAMBLA. Not so anymore. Do you think that NAMBLA is hoping that times will indeed continue to change?
At what point do you look up your own facts to refute those of the opposition? At what point do you find credible resources to refute those of the opposition?
[/quote]
The sources he quoted are not credible on their face, ass, or anywhere else. Any bunch of hucksters spouting bullshit about “family”, “tradition”, or whatever other nonsense in a veiled smokescreen of homophobia should be given neither creedence, nor respect.
Debate NAMBLA? What’s wrong with you? Coming up with facts to debate NAMBLA, or gay-bashers (which is what those websites represent, I don’t care how many times they say the word “family”) is likke debating Intelligent Design people: it shouldn’t be done because it gives respectability to an indefensible position.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.
Do you have any studies from godhatesfags.com?
[/quote]
Are you finished? Or are you also going to bash the the federal agency Centers for Disease Control stating they are some right-wing biased organization as well? You seemed to ignore that one, wonder why?
I guess any source I site that doesn’t agree with your position is biased. Maybe you should save us all some time and just quote yourself as that is the only source you seem to think is valid.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.
Do you have any studies from godhatesfags.com?
Are you finished? Or are you also going to bash the the federal agency Centers for Disease Control stating they are some right-wing biased organization as well? You seemed to ignore that one, wonder why?
I guess any source I site that doesn’t agree with your position is biased. Maybe you should save us all some time and just quote yourself as that is the only source you seem to think is valid.
[/quote]
No. The CDC is valid. The other ones are biased, agenda-pushing hate-filled pieces of shit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
…
This is the key question, the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I believe there are societal costs and benefits. I am not sure the scale of either.
I believe there would be social benefits to gays if civil unions were allowed. And no social cost to the rest of us. I haven’t seen any reliable evidence to suggest otherwise.
At a minimum the societal costs would include the economic costs of adding gay lovers to health insurance plans, etc.
Would they pay the same rate for health insurance as heterosexual couples?
What if the statistics indicate it is more expensive to provide gay couples health care than straight couples?
Would insurance companies be allowed to raise the rates for gay couples?
These may seem like silly questions, but I am sure they would be asked and will be controversial.
[/quote]
They should be added to health insurance plans. And they should be allowed to visit their partners in the hospital. If it’s more expensive to provide health care to them (and for what reason are you suggesting?) than there premiums should be higher. Just like smokers. I don’t know why this would be unless you’re suggesting an AIDS-related explanation. That is possible. It doesn’t mean that they still shouldn’t get benefits.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
These may seem like silly questions, but I am sure they would be asked and will be controversial.
I like the ones where discrimination works in their favor. i.e. A woman is sexually assaulted, survives, and identifies her attacker as one of two men (it was dark, she couldn’t see, etc., etc.), one is/was in a homosexual marriage and one is/was in a heterosexual marriage. Are the two suspects equal? Or could an arrest and trial take place based on sexual preference? Would it be an acceptable defense? Could one man get off because the other man was equally capable just of a different sexual orientation (reasonable doubt)? Does it matter?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? A sexual assault is a sexual assault. Supposed sexual orientation has no bearing. It’s not one of the mitgating factors. Anymore than whether the attacker has blond hair or brown hair. Presumably sexual orientation speaks to the liklihood of the raping a woman. But that’s just one causation factor. And it has nothing to do with dicrimination. It has to do with the fact that absent any real evidence, a gay man is probably less likely to rape a woman than a straight man.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?
Prof., correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuals ARE allowed to be “bonded”. Bonding may or may not help those items, we’d have to test it to find out. The question really is: “Should the entire nation be forced to accept/take part in it?”
Also, the general line of thought is extremely optimistic. We could encourage gay marriage as well as straight marriage, then outlaw divorce and begin to stem the AIDS epidemic because everyone will be honoring their marital vows. After that, we’ll ship every death row criminal to Texas, where I’m sure they’ll have enough chairs, throw the switch on the lot of them and watch crime rates plummet from the deterant effect. Finally, we’ll outlaw alcohol and watch drunk driving evaporate. Let me know when [/quote]
This is probably the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever seen.