[quote]makkun wrote:
God damn, this thread is fun - we’ve got gay marriage, guys hitting each other with bible quotes (wow PRCalDude, you know your shit), lixy/islam bashing. All we need is a tribunal, pictures of tits (does my Leela pic count?) and lolcats (Makavali enter stage from the right). 
Makkun[/quote]
Heh heh. Covering all the bases yet making no progress on the issues.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
It’s the difference between what I have seen personally (that is what anecdotal means) and what statistics or actual data may show.
So the kids I know raised by gays seem to have turned out ok, but they may be the minority in terms of others or actual statistically significant data.
So to be fair I’m stating that all I know is what I have seen and it may be different than the majority.
[/quote]
I think I know where you are coming from. NONE of the kids you know who were raised by gay parents were witness to their parents sexual activities but since that MAY happen, you’ll run with the possibility vs. the fact.
You place a higher value on what you have NOT seen vs. what you actually know through observation. That is unusual but it explains much of what you have said in this thread.
Thanks for clearing it up :).
[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
[…]
I don’t know what gays would do as parents or not. But, from the gay organizations they tend to state how free and liberal they are in terms of sexuality. So it would stand to reason that they would not care if a kid was watching them having sex.
So you do imply that they would. Wow, that’s quite a disturbing prejudice you’re displaying here. Fortunately, as gay people are just normal, they share a healthy respect for privacy and appropriateness just like us heteros.
[…]
Like I said, traditionally and statistically, heterosexuals are more restrained when it comes to sexual practices. So that is where the assumption comes from.
How do you define, quantify and source this? Staying with your fixation on gay anal sex - you’d be surprised by the numbers of heterosexuals who practice that. So again - you base your assumption on prejudice.
[…]
So are you saying you were raised by gay parents?
No, I was raised by heterosexual parents - my point was that it wouldn’t make too much of a difference. What has definitely an effect is when parents raise their children to have prejudiced views about the sexuality of others, whether through teaching them directly, bad example or via neglect.
[…]
Not sure what that is implying. But people should be free to have their own moral views on behavior. And there is nothing hypocritical about not agreeing with certain behavior or lifestyle practices unless you do them yourself.
Yes, and you are free to do so. Gay marriage doesn’t impede upon your right to have your views. And as long as your views don’t impede on their chance to express their perfectly legal and healthy expressions of their morals and behaviour, that’s fine. Stopping to always imply the worst when it comes to gay people would help with that.
Makkun[/quote]
Listen Bro, my assumptions are just as valid as yours. And implying that I should not make assumptions, when you are doing the same, does not support your point or make it more valid.
In any case, the sexual practices aside, I do not believe males are the same as females. And there is plenty of data to show that kids do best when they have both a male and female influence in their life. So no matter how you slice it, kids get shortchanged by having two parents of the same gender, or only one parent.
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
makkun wrote:
God damn, this thread is fun - we’ve got gay marriage, guys hitting each other with bible quotes (wow PRCalDude, you know your shit), lixy/islam bashing. All we need is a tribunal, pictures of tits (does my Leela pic count?) and lolcats (Makavali enter stage from the right).
Makkun
Heh heh. Covering all the bases yet making no progress on the issues.[/quote]
Thanks, Makkun.
I think, at the end of the day, what we need is perfectly impartial observers (space aliens, perhaps) to go over to some other country where this is done and see how it works out there. If the data suggests that the effects on society will not be deleterious, then by all means, let’s allow it.
My basic argument is that gay marriage will have a negative effect on society in terms of child-rearing and that other groups will want their own definition of marriage (ie, Muslims). It’s the slippery-slope argument. Some may then ask why polygamy is outlawed as well. Well, it’s not in plenty of Islamic societies and I can’t think of one we ought to emulate in terms of its treatment of women. I don’t see any evidence that their model works, which is part of the reason so many of them are clamoring to move to the West. They’re literally voting with their feet. I believe poor treatment of 50% of the population will have a decidedly negative effect on society.
If there’s no slippery slope to the gay marriage issue, my latter point becomes moot and I don’t care if gays get married if data suggests that it has no deleterious effect.
To heighten the fun we’re having, here we go:
According to the CDC, 40% of men 25-44 have had anal sex, and 34.7% of women. Same sex experience in these groups was 5.7% and 11.2% percent.
That means both in terms of sheer numbers and in relation, it’s the hetero parents who may have to explain to their children why no pregnancy may ensue after mommy and daddy made love. I knew it - it must be feminism after all…
Makkun
[quote]905Patrick wrote:
makkun wrote:
God damn, this thread is fun - we’ve got gay marriage, guys hitting each other with bible quotes (wow PRCalDude, you know your shit), lixy/islam bashing. All we need is a tribunal, pictures of tits (does my Leela pic count?) and lolcats (Makavali enter stage from the right).
Makkun
Heh heh. Covering all the bases yet making no progress on the issues.[/quote]
Welcome to the world of Internet debates. 
Makkun
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Listen Bro, my assumptions are just as valid as yours. And implying that I should not make assumptions, when you are doing the same, does not support your point or make it more valid.[/quote]
You assumptions are not valid. You’ve got no data backing it up. You make this assumption that gay people are all “loud and proud” and run with it. Please explain how gay parents are more likely to be having sex in front of a child.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
[…]
Listen Bro, my assumptions are just as valid as yours. And implying that I should not make assumptions, when you are doing the same, does not support your point or make it more valid.[/quote]
That’s exactly what I said - I’m sorry if my moral outrage with regards to your (incorrect, please check the CDC data I just posted) assumptions and views irritate you. They by no means intend to curtail your right to state them.
Funnily enough - I agree with you. Children benefit in my opinion most from a mix of positive female and male role models. On the other hand - they get short changed by dozens of things in their lives: social deprivation, racism, a parent dying, divorce (that’s a big one), etc. That’s what becoming an adult is about - learning to deal with being short-changed or missing out on the fleeting ideal of a family. Children need real families consisting of people who care for them - let’s not keep out the ones who try to commit to children and want to do a good job, from doing so. If getting them married helps them, so be it.
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
Thanks, Makkun.
I think, at the end of the day, what we need is perfectly impartial observers (space aliens, perhaps) to go over to some other country where this is done and see how it works out there. If the data suggests that the effects on society will not be deleterious, then by all means, let’s allow it.[/quote]
Waiting for impartial observers may take us a few millennia. Let’s go with the science that’s there already. There are enough states and countries which have made the step, and their societies haven’t fallen apart. Oh, by the way, France dropped its incest laws under Napoleon. I don’t see any breakdown of society due to that.
I’ve covered that a bit earlier already - yes, it may open up the discussion about polygamy (and pretty much only that). I would argue that polygamy is not the problem - it’s the mysogynist attitude in the states that practice it. Let’s make sure that we don’t focus on Islam here. Humboldt-University’s centre for sexual studies states that: “In Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas of 849 human cultures, 709 (83.5 percent) were polygynous, 137 (16.1 percent) were monogamous (one man, one wife), and 4 (0.047 percent) were polyandrous (one woman married to two or more men). Many people incorrectly use the terms “polygyny” and “polygamy” interchangeably; polygamy is a general term for both polygyny and polyandry.”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/INDEX.HTM
The problem with it is not necessarily that you have more than two people in a relationship, but that there is a imbalance of power in favor of the male partner. That’s the bit that needs fixing as it does the damage we see.
I think it’s really clear by now that there is no slippery slope - individual people of whatever sexual orientation will fail their children. Whether gay people are married in the process will not change that too much. I would argue that the attempts to keeping them from it do more damage than allowing them to do so.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
Thanks, Makkun.
I think, at the end of the day, what we need is perfectly impartial observers (space aliens, perhaps) to go over to some other country where this is done and see how it works out there. If the data suggests that the effects on society will not be deleterious, then by all means, let’s allow it.
Waiting for impartial observers may take us a few millennia. Let’s go with the science that’s there already. There are enough states and countries which have made the step, and their societies haven’t fallen apart. Oh, by the way, France dropped its incest laws under Napoleon. I don’t see any breakdown of society due to that.
My basic argument is that gay marriage will have a negative effect on society in terms of child-rearing and that other groups will want their own definition of marriage (ie, Muslims). It’s the slippery-slope argument. Some may then ask why polygamy is outlawed as well. Well, it’s not in plenty of Islamic societies and I can’t think of one we ought to emulate in terms of its treatment of women. I don’t see any evidence that their model works, which is part of the reason so many of them are clamoring to move to the West. They’re literally voting with their feet. I believe poor treatment of 50% of the population will have a decidedly negative effect on society.
I’ve covered that a bit earlier already - yes, it may open up the discussion about polygamy (and pretty much only that). I would argue that polygamy is not the problem - it’s the mysogynist attitude in the states that practice it. Let’s make sure that we don’t focus on Islam here. Humboldt-University’s centre for sexual studies states that: “In Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas of 849 human cultures, 709 (83.5 percent) were polygynous, 137 (16.1 percent) were monogamous (one man, one wife), and 4 (0.047 percent) were polyandrous (one woman married to two or more men). Many people incorrectly use the terms “polygyny” and “polygamy” interchangeably; polygamy is a general term for both polygyny and polyandry.”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/INDEX.HTM
The problem with it is not necessarily that you have more than two people in a relationship, but that there is a imbalance of power in favor of the male partner. That’s the bit that needs fixing as it does the damage we see.
If there’s no slippery slope to the gay marriage issue, my latter point becomes moot and I don’t care if gays get married if data suggests that it has no deleterious effect.
I think it’s really clear by now that there is no slippery slope - individual people of whatever sexual orientation will fail their children. Whether gay people are married in the process will not change that too much. I would argue that the attempts to keeping them from it do more damage than allowing them to do so.
Makkun[/quote]
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
[…]
Listen Bro, my assumptions are just as valid as yours. And implying that I should not make assumptions, when you are doing the same, does not support your point or make it more valid.
That’s exactly what I said - I’m sorry if my moral outrage with regards to your (incorrect, please check the CDC data I just posted) assumptions and views irritate you. They by no means intend to curtail your right to state them.
In any case, the sexual practices aside, I do not believe males are the same as females. And there is plenty of data to show that kids do best when they have both a male and female influence in their life. So no matter how you slice it, kids get shortchanged by having two parents of the same gender, or only one parent.
Funnily enough - I agree with you. Children benefit in my opinion most from a mix of positive female and male role models. On the other hand - they get short changed by dozens of things in their lives: social deprivation, racism, a parent dying, divorce (that’s a big one), etc. That’s what becoming an adult is about - learning to deal with being short-changed or missing out on the fleeting ideal of a family. Children need real families consisting of people who care for them - let’s not keep out the ones who try to commit to children and want to do a good job, from doing so. If getting them married helps them, so be it.
Makkun[/quote]
Dude, you need to read more carefully. You will note that my personal experience has been that kids from gays were heteros and seemed well adjusted, but I assumed that that may not be the case for the majority.
But regardless, kids should have both a male and female figure in their life and if we have a choice in the matter we should insist on that.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.[/quote]
I like how you link stuff together when there is nothing to tie them.
I eat pineapple and I have black hair.
[quote]makkun wrote:
To heighten the fun we’re having, here we go:
According to the CDC, 40% of men 25-44 have had anal sex, and 34.7% of women. Same sex experience in these groups was 5.7% and 11.2% percent.
That means both in terms of sheer numbers and in relation, it’s the hetero parents who may have to explain to their children why no pregnancy may ensue after mommy and daddy made love. I knew it - it must be feminism after all…
Makkun[/quote]
Bro, you seem a little preoccupied in promoting your salami down the Hershey highway. You might want to look into that.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Dude, you need to read more carefully. You will note that my personal experience has been that kids from gays were heteros and seemed well adjusted, but I assumed that that may not be the case for the majority.
But regardless, kids should have both a male and female figure in their life and if we have a choice in the matter we should insist on that.[/quote]
Then choose how you make such assumptions carefully.
And these twins had a mother and father. Things turned out great for them (sarcastic comment there).
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501822&objectid=10508486
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.
I like how you link stuff together when there is nothing to tie them.
I eat pineapple and I have black hair.[/quote]
Fascinating. We’re not talking about a single sample here, now are we?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.
I like how you link stuff together when there is nothing to tie them.
I eat pineapple and I have black hair.[/quote]
Really, the issue of whether there is nothing to link them or not is unknown. That’s why you sample and correlate to see if there might be an indicator that a link exists. But I can tell I’m not dealing with a person who’s worked with a data set before.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Fascinating. We’re not talking about a single sample here, now are we?[/quote]
No, I’m talking about how correlation does not imply causation.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]
Did this researcher bother to correlate these societies he surveyed with GDP per capita or the freedom index? He’s said that most cultures practice it, but he hasn’t said how many of these cultures are living in dollar a day poverty or under harsh rulers. In the West, where polygyny is uncommon, we also have lots of money and democracy.
[/quote]
Nope, I doubt that. I would also think that it’s a historical ethnographic mapping, rather than our current status quo. If you follow the source though, you’ll see that the library entry states that polygyny tends to be a feature of pre-industrialised societies. Availability of “money and democracy” has increased with industrialisation and the breakup of traditional agrarian societies. My main point was that what really tends to help societies is empowering women to decide about their lives and bodies - polygyny is more of a symptom than the problem itself.
Makkun
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Fascinating. We’re not talking about a single sample here, now are we?
No, I’m talking about how correlation does not imply causation.[/quote]
I doesn’t necessarily, but it may.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Really, the issue of whether there is nothing to link them or not is unknown. That’s why you sample and correlate to see if there might be an indicator that a link exists. But I can tell I’m not dealing with a person who’s worked with a data set before. [/quote]
Yes, but there is no obvious implication of polygamy (or lack thereof) being the cause of the Western domination. Spousal infidelity is pretty much the same thing as polygamy in a sense so should I argue that point?