Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Newflash. There’s lots of things we do today as good Christians that our founders wouldn’t like. And there’s lots of things they did that we find unacceptable. They didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery. At least not to the point of forbidding it. Rather, they passed legislation such as the 3/5 clause which counted every black man as 3/5 of a white man for proportional rerpesenation in the House.

Not true. Many of our founders did have a problem with slavery. But, the issue they were dealing with when our country was founded was a departure from English suppression.

Things like this 3/5 clause are political compromises. How else do you think they say “Gosh, I think a black is worth 60% of a white man.” Without writing a reseach paper on the subject, I can guess that lots of factors played into this including (but not limited to) political power, financial power (ability to buy slaves/sway populus), and moral values.

Maybe the people who claim to be “Good Christians” should start getting their information from the bible instead of liberal universities.

You’re exactly right. Some did have a problem with it. But not enough to make an issue out of it. Perhaps legitimately out of fear about making it an issue precluding the establishment of the union. And not enough to prevent them from owning slaves themselves. Bowing to political realities as opposed to attempting to challenge them does not make something right. You never know until you try. And last time I checked, the Bible said nothing about slavery in America.

I thought we were talking about gay marriage here?

In regards to slavery, I am sure it would have been a huge issue getting all the colonies on board with the revolution if slavery was made an issue. So, it wansn’t. But, that’s a different story.

BTW - have you read the bible? I mean the whole thing?

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you? But considering that the Bible does not deal with modern history, I would not imagine it talks about America or anything in the last few hundred years. [/quote]

I’ve read about 3/4 of it. It just bugs me when people say “the bible says” or “the bible doesn’t say” when they have no point of reference. So, I have to ask the question to see what you really know. Generally, it’s not much.

Ivan, you keep making the same assertions. It doesn’t make them any more true. There are some legitimate, reasonably intelligent arguments against gay civil unions and particularly against gay marriage. Increased pedophila, highger healthcare cost, and spread of AIDS are not among them. Sorry.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you? [/quote]

Had to respond again. This kind of reminded me of the “debating with someone stupider than me” statement you made. Thought you might get a laugh out of it.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you?

Had to respond again. This kind of reminded me of the “debating with someone stupider than me” statement you made. Thought you might get a laugh out of it.[/quote]

I think it was a reasonable assumption that the Bible does not address slavery in America.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you?

Had to respond again. This kind of reminded me of the “debating with someone stupider than me” statement you made. Thought you might get a laugh out of it.[/quote]

Also, I’ve read some of the bible. But really, this shouldn’t be about us. And this is irrelevant to our main points too

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

No. I haven’t read the whole bible. Have you you?

Had to respond again. This kind of reminded me of the “debating with someone stupider than me” statement you made. Thought you might get a laugh out of it.

I think it was a reasonable assumption that the Bible does not address slavery in America. [/quote]

That wasn’t the point, but hey…that’s cool.

I am absolute amazed at the things people in this thread scoff at.

You know, if you told people twenty years ago that there would be a serious push to have gay marriage legal, you’d have been laughed to scorn. But, low and behold, here it is.

I’ve obviously confused some people with my projections, so I’ll try to dumb it down a bit. But, rest assured, if gay marriage is legalized, you can watch and see the things I pointed out come to pass. God help us all if we come to that day.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.
[/quote]

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…

Also, theres data showing higher rates of disease MUCH earlier death rates higher rates of domestic problems high rates of going to jail higher suicides with living in rural areas

or being black

or being indian

or being …

should people not live in small towns?

Should african american, american indians, australian aboriginals, most minorities not be allowed to marry either?

I really dont see how that argument has anything to do with anything…

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I am absolute amazed at the things people in this thread scoff at.

You know, if you told people twenty years ago that there would be a serious push to have gay marriage legal, you’d have been laughed to scorn. But, low and behold, here it is.

I’ve obviously confused some people with my projections, so I’ll try to dumb it down a bit. But, rest assured, if gay marriage is legalized, you can watch and see the things I pointed out come to pass. God help us all if we come to that day.[/quote]

Don’t dumb down. Just explain a clear and consise causal relationship

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lack of proof that it is genetic doesn’t mean it is not genetic. It simply means we don’t have proof.

You know where I stand on the issue:

  1. I have no idea how or why people become gay, but resent various liberal groups saying “they are born that way” as if it’s fact.

  2. I have presented various pieces of information and statistics which demonstrate that gays are able to change if they are motivated.

  3. I have further presented information which clearly demonstrates that the gay lifestyle is indeed unhealthy.

But, black men die (on average) 14 years before white men. They are also at a higher risk to be smokers, drinkers, or become incarcerated.

Is, therefore, the black “lifestyle” unhealthy and something to change. (Assuming, obvioulsy, that said black men are "motivated.)

Being black is genetic and no more dangerous than being white or asian. While there are some disorders that effect each race differently, that is not the question.

I would guess that a contributing factor in the shorter black life span is poverty. If that is the case would you encourage or discourage blacks to come out of poverty?

I think we need to assist any group who has obvious disadvantages below the national average.

Those who participate in same sex activity are displaying a (ready for the word again) BEHAVIOR which is apparently dangerous (looking at all of the statistics).

(yawn)
[/quote]

living in rural areas is a behaviour and not genetic…

what about steroid users? can they marry?

fat people?

Smokers?

people that drink a lot of alcohol?

Studs?

Sluts?

athletes who do whatever it takes to be the best often at the expense of their health?

people who dont exercise enough?

there are a billion behaviours associatted with less than optimal health outcomes…

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…
[/quote]

Extremely good point. Pretty difficult to see how allowing civil unions would increase those issues. If anything, it creates a higher theoretical standard of monogamy and committment for them to hold themselves too. If they fall short of it, no different than now.

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…[/quote]

Actually, statistically there are problems with those who call themselves “gay” and staying in long term relationships. Please review my earlier posts.

Beyond that:

There are many other reasons not to allow gay marriage. many or most of them have been discussed on this thread. I think you should reread some of my earlier posts. Those posts cover; tradition, religion, social mores and of course health statistics.

As to the health statistics: Do you think that we would see a rise in same sex attraction or a decrease in that particular BEHAVIOR if we allowed gay marriage?

Remember Chris, we don’t know how or why people become gay. Be careful here.

Furthermore, I think the onus should be on those attempting to change a 5000+ year old instituion to give very good reasons to do so. Thus far I have
not seen any, here or at a national level.

That is one reason (and only one) why polls show that on average 70% of all people are against gay marriage. And also in the 16 or so states which have offered a gay marriage as a referendum all have been soundly dfeated by wide margins. Texas just defeated one by 77%!

Our rural health problem tends to revolve around the fact that by and large they have a lower poverty level. Surely you are not comparing rural poverty to the epidemic which seems to have swallowed up the gay community.

The National Rural Health Association
States the following:

“Rural residents tend to be poorer. On the average, per capita income is $7,417 lower than in urban areas, and rural Americans are more likely to live below the poverty level. The disparity in incomes is even greater for minorities living in rural areas. Nearly 24% of rural children live in poverty.”

Knowing the above should we try to place more people in this environment? Or, should we try to assist them in brining up their standard of living. I think you know the answer to this. We should never push people into situations that are physically or emotionally unhealthy.

I covered this in a post at the top of this page you apparently missed it. Here it is again:

"Being black is genetic and no more dangerous than being white or Asian. While there are some disorders that effect each race differently, that is not the question.

I would guess that a contributing factor in the shorter black life span is poverty. If that is the case would you encourage or discourage blacks to come out of poverty?

I think we need to assist any group who has obvious disadvantages below the national average.

Those who participate in same sex activity are displaying a (ready for the word again) BEHAVIOR which is apparently dangerous (looking at all of the statistics)."

[quote]Should african american, american indians, australian aboriginals, most minorities not be allowed to marry either?
[/quote]

Please don’t compare the struggles of those born into poverty to the American’s who have a same sex attraction. They are as different as night and day.

One is a behavior and the other genetic. No amount of comparison makes any sense.

Again, it’s not that “being” any of the above is a bad or dangerous thing. It is the circumstances in which they live, or are subjected to that make their situations sometimes unhealthy. Furthermore, no one is advocating that we promote more rural or urban poverty.

Promoting same sex attraction via marriage is inherently asking for more of the same (see the many health stats that I have posted).

It seems that statistically gay people, by their behavior, have chosen a life of pain both physically and mentally. It is the responsibility of “gay” leaders to help these people. But unfortunately all we get from this group is them insisting that they “are born that way.”

And any sort of demonstration of those in the Psychological profession which counter “gay logic” have been attacked. This has become so politically charged that common sense is now replaced with political correctness. This unfortunately means that there is no help coming to gays from their very own leaders! Sad!

Also, as you know by now there is no conclusive proof that anyone is born with a same sex attraction. And in fact through numerous studies it has been shown that those with same sex attraction can get help and become healthy functioning heterosexuals-IF they really want to.

Hopefully you now see the difference between the examples that you have given and the situation with those with same sex attraction.

As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.

[quote]WMD wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.

It is already banned in most States.

lorisco, you ignorant slut, please read lawrence v. texas:
Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

The Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay sex are unconstitutional. Now that I have once again “owned” your ignorant ass, please STFU up about state laws against gay sex.

None of you people (ZEB, tinyivan, etc.) has proven that the things you fantasize gay men doing (butt sex, blow jobs, etc.) is somehow less harmful when straight people do them. Your logic and reasoning are perverse. You post stats that you understand not at all. Here are some stats for you:

"Researchers use the term “alcohol problems” to refer to any type of condition caused by drinking which harms the drinker directly, jeopardizes the drinker’s well-being, or places others at risk. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, nearly 14 million people in the United States-1 in every 13 adults-have alcohol problems, though most do not realize or acknowledge it.

It is additionally estimated that 43% of U.S. adults (76 million people) have been exposed to alcoholism in the family–they have a parent/guardian, spouse or other family member who is or was an alcoholic or a problem drinker."

I wonder if all those 14 million people are gay? Let’s look at some more.

“Recently, however, the proportion of HIV cases acquired through heterosexual contact has increased and almost equals the proportion of cases attributable to injection drug use. The proportion of all AIDS cases reported among women has tripled since the mid-1980s, primarily as a result of heterosexual exposure and secondarily through injection drug use. Minority groups are the most heavily affected by HIV associated with drug injection, and Blacks and Hispanics now account for an estimated 70% of all new AIDS cases.”

Who is at highest risk for suicide in the U.S.?

"There is a common perception that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly older white males that have the highest rates. And among white males 65 and older, risk goes up with age. White men 85 and older have a suicide rate that is six times that of the overall national rate. Why are rates so high for this group? White males are more deliberate in their suicide intentions; they use more lethal methods (firearms), and are less likely to talk about their plans. It may also be that older persons are less likely to survive attempts because they are less likely to recuperate.

Over 70 percent of older suicide victims have been to their primary care physician within the month of their death, many with a depressive illness that was not detected. This has led to research efforts to determine how to best improve physicians’ abilities to detect and treat depression in older adults."

"Are gay and lesbian youth at high risk for suicide?

With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account."

  1. Gay Relationships
    a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
    J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
    L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
    J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales

M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).

Psychological Testing Affirms the Mental Health of Homosexuals

This represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60’s -70’s. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80’s progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90’s. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:

L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86

b) Other tests (Eysenck’s Personality Inventory, Cattel’s 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)

R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31

How’s that for studies and stats and tests? Far more than you guys have and from a variety of sources.

You’ll most likely ignore it all because it doesn’t fit your beliefs about gay people.

I’m beginning to think you really like being dominated by a lesbian. That’s why you keep saying stupid ignorant crap.

Get on your knees, wormboy.
[/quote]

Well babe,

To give Zeb credit, I think he has posted plenty of credible evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is mentally and physically unhealthy. But to give him a break here is some more data that proves this point.

Facts:

  1. Anal sex is the main cause of HIV infection:

“Contrary to the proposal about a process of “heterosexualization” of HIV/AIDS epidemic in Chiapas State and particularly in the Soconusco’s region, the present study suggest that homosexual and bisexual behavior continue to be the main routes of HIV transmission among men”
Gac Med Mex. 2005 Sep-Oct;141(5):401-6.

  1. Gay men have more sexual partners:

In speaking of gay men, “Most men in the sample had more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months (62%) and more than a third had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner in the same time period.”
AIDS Behav. 2005 Dec 3;:1-11

  1. There is a relationship (meaning one causes the other) between kids who are victims of violence that later grow up to be gay:

"The highest absolute number of new HIV infections and AIDS cases still occur among men who have sex with men (MSM). Numerous theoretical approaches have been used to understand HIV risk behaviors among MSM; however, no theoretical model examines sexual risk behaviors in the context of gay identity and interpersonal violence. Using a model testing predictive correlational design, the theoretical relationships between childhood sexual abuse, adverse early life experiences, gay identity, substance use, battering, aversive emotions, HIV alienation, cue-to-action triggers, and HIV risk behaviors were empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

The relationships between these constructs are complex, yet childhood sexual abuse and gay identity were found to be theoretically associated with HIV risk behaviors. Also of importance, battering victimization was identified as a key mediating variable between childhood sexual abuse, gay identity, and adverse early life experiences and HIV risk behaviors among urban MSM." J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2004 Mar-Apr;15(2):14-26.

“In recent years, researchers have found that a larger number of gay or bisexual men have been sexually abused as children than other men.” J Homosex. 2004;48(2):103-24.

  1. Both gay men and women (that’s you Babe) have higher rates of mental illness:

“Cross-sectional study in England and Wales using ‘snowball’ sampling. RESULTS: Participants: 656 gay men, 505 heterosexual men, 430 lesbians and 588 heterosexual women. Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs.” Br J Psychiatry. 2003 Dec;183:552-8.

  1. Gay men have more high-risk sexual behavior that heterosexuals:

“HIV-negative men, men who have sex with men and women (MSM/W), and men who have sex with men (MSM) engaged in more high-risk sexual behaviors than heterosexuals and HIV-positive men, but men who were HIV-positive carried a heavier burden of psychosocial risk factors.” AIDS Educ Prev. 2003 Feb;15(1 Suppl A):66-79.

  1. Gay women (you again Babe) engage in more risky sexual behaviors, have more STD’s, and more HIV that heterosexuals:

"From the national survey on violence against women in France carried out in 2000 by phone, two groups have been compared: 78 women who have had at least one woman sexual partner and 6332 women who have had only male partners during lifetime. RESULTS: Women who have had sexual relationships with women more often have high level social positions and live in large cities.

They have a more diverse sexual life that they begin younger and more partners, mainly men. They use contraception less often. They have more sexually transmitted infections and are more often tested for HIV. They visit gynaecologists as often as other women. They are more often victims of violence, especially physical violence as adults." Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Oct;33(10):776-82.

And again, name calling just shows the weakness of your position as does posting bogus references. Nice try.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
please read lawrence v. texas:
Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.

Now that I have once again “owned” your ignorant ass, please STFU up about state laws against gay sex.

Hey lorisco for some reason lesbians like to talk about OWNING people from the other side.

(shaking head and smiling) That’s no way to fit into legitimate society WMD. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

That is what is so convoluted about the gay position, on one hand they state (as WMD has stated many times) that they don’t want to fit into the traditions and standards of modern society. On the other hand they want to be married (which is a tradition and standard of modern society).

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. [/quote]

Now you know that I never stated anything about 30 years. Some long term data relative to children is already available if someone had the desire to compile it

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.[/quote]

News flash sport, gays cannot have children. (That’s the nice imagery I left you with last time). So unless they are let to procreate using a test tube and male/female donor, or adopt, they will not have any children to mess up.

So civil unions can be permitted without permitting these other options (to make what is not natural [same-sex] seem natural [by using other means to have a family]).

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

Those are problems with being gay not gay mariage…

Extremely good point. Pretty difficult to see how allowing civil unions would increase those issues. If anything, it creates a higher theoretical standard of monogamy and committment for them to hold themselves too. If they fall short of it, no different than now.
[/quote]

Not that I would put words in Zeb’s mouth, but I think he is demonstrating that he gay lifestyle/behavior in itself is damaging. And, creating civil unions tells the uninformed viewer that it’s OK to behave in that manner.

So, even if there are some gays that are commited to each other, there are plenty more non-commited people who see the behavior and try it out because it is socially acceptable. It just magnifies the problem.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study. Even this might be better left to private individuals and adoption agencies, in my opiion.[/quote]

I am not a big fan on experimenting on our children. We already have stats available, much of which have been posted on this thread. Don’t you think we can pull something valid from what we have?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
As far as I can see, the only potentially valid reason to hold off on civil unions mentioned in this thread is one Zeb referenced earlier. And that is the potential effect it might have on children. The suggestion was to wait 30 years and observe the impact on children who were raised by gays in a committed relationship and if possible even do a more systematic controlled study.

Now you know that I never stated anything about 30 years. Some long term data relative to children is already available if someone had the desire to compile it

[/quote]

Well, you may not have. But that probably would’ve been a good position to take. How is their long-term data available? Have gay couples really raised any children other than in recent years?