John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just because traditional marriage is currently in poor shape doesn't mean we should debase it further. The proof is in the pudding. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 I'll play along and make these assumptions in your favor: (1) Homosexual couples' rates of commitment will not rise as they are moved out of the closet. (2) Your article's links are all 100% accurate. So, even if those assumptions are correct, what gives the government the right to prohibit two same-sex adults from contacting into a marriage? The answer is still "nothing." Your answer is "I don't like it so the government should intrude." Well played Mr. Conservative-when-it-suits-you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 So, even if those assumptions are correct, what gives the government the right to prohibit two same-sex adults from contacting into a marriage? The Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The Bible. so it's official the US are a theocracy?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They are when they point to using questionable statistics to further a political agenda. Using a "study" from the Family Council about marriage is just as valid as statistics from the Brady Center that say guns are bad. Doesn't seem like that should have been so difficult to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just because traditional marriage is currently in poor shape doesn't mean we should debase it further. The proof is in the pudding. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 That is one of the most ridiculous "research" papers I have ever seen. It really lost its way with "the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples" (no **** - gays can't get married), and then goes off a cliff from there. Really, you couldn't find a Bill Nye video to link to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 so it's official the US are a theocracy?!!! Despite the best intentions of the Founding Fathers, there are some who would like that to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well in fact i've readen recently that gay couples are actually way more stable than heterosexual ones!Gay marriages 'd in fact improve the divorce rates of marriages! I doubt that it would long term, but it makes sense that it would short term. There are a lot more incentives for gay men and women that aren't in a "committed long term relationship" to keep their homosexuality "in the closet" than there are for straight men and women. While a man would likely introduce his girlfriend of 1 month to his coworkers if he ran into them out in public, it is less likely that a man would do the same with his boyfriend. The random sample of gay couples that are willing to identify themselves as such to polltakers or researchers would be expected to have a higher percentage that are in a "lifetime commitment", than a random sample of straight couples as straight people just starting down the relationship road don't have to be "outed." As gay marriage starts, it makes sense that a higher portion of those choosing to get married are the ones that are committed enough to jump through the hoops (taking a trip to Massachusetts, dealing with their own state not recognizing the marraige, dealing w/ "gay-bashers", etc). As it becomes more commonplace, it makes sense that eventually there'll be "Vegas-weddings" where the bride (or groom, not sure how they decide which is which) wakes up wondering just what the frig they've done and how quickly can they get it annulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Funny, I was just telling the wife the other day "Can you imagine how badly our marriage would suck if our gay friends were married too." I saw comedian Greg Geraldo over the Thanksgiving break. He was talking about how he was going through another divorce. He said it was weird, one day his wife just looked at him and said: "You know, Greg, I just love you so much and marriage is wonderful and I love being with you and I love talking to you and spending time with you. I don't mind all the travel and the drugs and the booze and the women, really everything is just so great. It's....it's just that these !@#$ing faggots wanting to get married now is ruining everything we've built! I don't think I can do this anymore." Bottom line, I've never heard an anti-gay marriage argument that can't ultimately be boiled down to "I think being gay is gross." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 That is one of the most ridiculous "research" papers I have ever seen. It really lost its way with "the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples" (no **** - gays can't get married), and then goes off a cliff from there. Really, you couldn't find a Bill Nye video to link to? Is there ANY research you approve of? Except yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Is there ANY research you approve of? Except yours? Yes. But that paper is a hash mismatched data from which no concrete conclusions can or should be drawn. No one who complains about a "global warming FRAUD" should be giving that paper any credence, since it evidences the same flaws, but on a much larger scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Yes. But that paper is a hash mismatched data from which no concrete conclusions can or should be drawn. No one who complains about a "global warming FRAUD" should be giving that paper any credence, since it evidences the same flaws, but on a much larger scale. I think you have me confused with someone else. I never used the word "FRAUD" in caps. But I think a paper with 52 references on gay marriage is more authoritative Then wild speculation over why the gulf stream is averaging 10 degrees higher in latitude. This year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think you have me confused with someone else. I never used the word "FRAUD" in caps. But I think a paper with 52 references on gay marriage is more authoritative Then wild speculation over why the gulf stream is averaging 10 degrees higher in latitude.This year. Do I take it from your support for this article in this thread that you would argue "Homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry because they may divorce at a higher rate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Do I take it from your support for this article in this thread that you would argue "Homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry because they may divorce at a higher rate." I don't think they should get married in the first place. Why would I give a crap if they got divorced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think you have me confused with someone else. I never used the word "FRAUD" in caps. But I think a paper with 52 references on gay marriage is more authoritative Then wild speculation over why the gulf stream is averaging 10 degrees higher in latitude.This year. Not quite. AGW research points to thousands of supportive references, with scientific bases that are fare more sound than the gay marriage study - for the simple reason that when you try to statistically compare people bound by a legal contract to people in a non-binding relationship, whatever conclusion the study will find is by design flawed and shouldn't be used as a set for any serious research. Put simply, the data sets are not comparable, so the conclusions will not be comparable. You may think that it validates your preset notion, but it's not even junk science, because using science in that context is beyond laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I could care less about religion- those lesbians and gay boys kissing give me the creeps. I don't care what they do at home-just don't shove it in my face. Yeah I am a redneck mule Skinner but a "marriage" that has to go to a 3rd party to have children is a farce.Form a LLC and call it what you will- just don't call it a marriage. Not quite. AGW research points to thousands of supportive references, with scientific bases that are fare more sound than the gay marriage study - for the simple reason that when you try to statistically compare people bound by a legal contract to people in a non-binding relationship, whatever conclusion the study will find is by design flawed and shouldn't be used as a set for any serious research. Put simply, the data sets are not comparable, so the conclusions will not be comparable. You may think that it validates your preset notion, but it's not even junk science, because using science in that context is beyond laughable. I am tired of repeating my self over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just because traditional marriage is currently in poor shape doesn't mean we should debase it further. The proof is in the pudding. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 That article reminds me of a "Focus on the Family" pamphlet some conservative lobbyist gave me once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think you have me confused with someone else. I never used the word "FRAUD" in caps. But I think a paper with 52 references on gay marriage is more authoritative Then wild speculation over why the gulf stream is averaging 10 degrees higher in latitude.This year. Not if the references, or the way they're used, are ****. Which, in this case, they pretty much are. Referencing a book from 1972 on why gays are unfit for monogamy in 2004 is ridiculous, for example, or drawing conclusions from a psychiatric study that itself goes out of its way to AVOID drawing any conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I am tired of repeating my self over and over. Why not call it a marriage? Just because some religions don't recognize them? What about the many religions that do recognize gay marriages? Why would the state short-change them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Why not call it a marriage? Just because some religions don't recognize them? What about the many religions that do recognize gay marriages? Why would the state short-change them? Or more importantly, why does religion even need to be in the conversation here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I am tired of repeating my self over and over. Yeah I am a redneck mule Skinner but a "marriage" that has to go to a 3rd party to have children is a farce. Form a LLC and call it what you will- just don't call it a marriage. So if you don't care about the legal status, but just the word, why are you extolling a sham study? And does your edict extend to married people who adopt? Should those marriages be immediately annulled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts