FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

[spursncowboys]

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

"Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different," proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. "We're the couple next door," claimed one partnered homosexual. "We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I'm boring."[1] Such down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights?

Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as "part of mainstream American society"?

On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence
Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.

RELATIONSHIP DURATION

Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Married Couples
· A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.[2]

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_1.gif

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
· A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.[3]

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_2.gif

Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
Male Homosexual Relationships
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_3.gif

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:

Married couples

· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]
· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]
· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]

Male Homosexuals

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]

"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]
· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170.

According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]
Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:
Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.[20]

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage. However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples.

Vermont

In April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.

Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont:

The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets--the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census--estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.[21]

According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.[22] Based on the Demography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]
For purposes of comparison it may be useful to examine two countries that have granted special rights to homosexuals, including marriage-like civil unions, which grant gays and lesbians virtually all of the rights of marriage.
Sweden

In 1995 Sweden passed the Registered Partnership Act which created civil unions for homosexual couples. In 2003 that law was amended to give registered homosexual couples the same right to adopt or have legal custody of children as married couples. The percentage of homosexual or lesbians in Sweden that enter into civil unions may be estimated as follows:

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden: Extrapolating from the Demography estimates in the U.S., a similar percentage of the homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden would be approximately 140,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 3,531,554, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 3,679,317).[25]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples.

The Netherlands

A landmark law allowing same-sex "marriage" was instituted in the Netherlands on March 31, 2001, with a highly publicized communal ceremony that included two lesbian "brides" and six homosexual "grooms." The Netherlands instituted a "registered partnership" law in 1998 that accorded legal status to homosexual relationships similar to that of marriage. The new law, which explicitly recognizes same-sex matrimony, is restricted to Dutch nationals. However, as the following analysis shows, the percentage of homosexuals and lesbians that have entered into marriage-like civil unions is very low.

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of the Netherlands: Extrapolating from demographic figures for homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S., a similar percentage for the Netherlands would be 242,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 6,161,662, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 6,311,338).[27]
Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Research released a report in October 2002 stating: "The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs reports that 3,383 of the 121,776 marriages licensed between April 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, involved people of the same sex."[28]

Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as "married."

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_5.gif

Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, 2; Black, "Demographics," 141; U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1; Bayles, "Vermont's Gay Civil Unions," 1; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4; Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't,'" 1; "ORL Backgrounder," 1.
The much lower rates of homosexual and lesbian civil "marriages" in Sweden and the Netherlands must be viewed in the light of much lower marriage rates in both of those countries, a trend that the introduction of gay "marriage" in the 1990s has not reversed. Thus, as writer Stanley Kurtz argues, the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals and lesbians "has further undermined the institution" of marriage: "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."[29]

Conclusion: Level of Relationship Commitment Among Homosexuals

Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter.

NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING RAISED IN HOMOSEXUAL HOUSEHOLDS

Inflated Statistics for Homosexual Households in the United States

Claims regarding the numbers of children being raised in homosexual and lesbian households vary widely and are often unsubstantiated. According to a study on homosexual parenting in the American Sociological Review, researchers have given figures "of uncertain origin, depicting a range of...6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States."[30]

According to the study's authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, the higher estimates are based upon "classifying as a lesbigay [sic] parent anyone who reports that even the idea of homoerotic sex is appealing."[31] Instead, the authors favor a figure of about one million, which "derives from the narrower...definition of a lesbigay parent as one who self-identifies as such."[32]

However, even the lower figure of one million children being raised in gay and lesbian households does not stand up to statistical analysis.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 594,391 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States (301,026 male homosexual households and 293,365 lesbian households).[33] This indicates that only one percent of the total of 59,969,000 households contain same-sex partners. Assuming the Stacey/Biblarz estimate that one million children have a homosexual or lesbian parent, this would mean that, on average, every homosexual household has at least one child.[34]

However, the 2000 Census figures show that only 33 percent (or 96,810) of female same-sex households and 22 percent (or 66,225) of male same-sex households have their own children living with them.[35] These 163,035 same-sex couples (or 326,070 individuals) comprise only 8 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population. Put another way, 92 percent of the estimated adult population of homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. do not live with children. By comparison, the 2000 Census showed that 46 percent of married couple households have at least one child living in the household.[36] However, this figure underestimates the total number of married couples who have had children, as many older couples have grown children who are no longer living at home.



http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_6.gif*Sources:Black, "Demographics," 141; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4.

The Stacey/Biblarz estimates may include children being raised by single homosexuals, some of whom are raising their own biological children conceived in a previous heterosexual relationship. Nevertheless, these calculations indicate how absurdly inflated most of the estimates are concerning the number of children being raised by homosexuals. Far from being the proven success that some claim, homosexual parenting remains very much the exception rather than the rule.

Implications for Homosexual Parenting

Gay activists attempt to minimize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual households in order to make homosexuality look as normal as possible. However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. Beyond that, the evidence also indicates that comparatively few homosexuals choose to establish households together--the type of setting that is normally prerequisite for the rearing of children.

The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy organization, claims that the U.S. population of gays and lesbians is 10,456,405, or five percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age.[37] However, as we have seen, the best available data supports a lower estimate of 2.5 percent for male homosexuals and 1.4 percent for lesbians.[38] This would lead to a figure of approximately 4,040,000 homosexual men and women in the U.S. population. Thus, only about 30 percent of homosexuals (1,202,418 out of some 4 million) choose to live in a household with a person of the same sex.

The above indicates that only a small minority of gays and lesbians choose to live in partnered relationships, and furthermore, only a small percentage of partnered homosexual households actually have children. The evidence thus does not support the claim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children.

HEALTH RISKS

Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. The evidence indicates that homosexual and lesbian relationships are at far greater risk for contracting life-threatening disease compared with married couples:
· The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.[39] Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[40]
· A study of steady and casual male homosexual relationships in Amsterdam found that "steady partners contribute to (HIV) incidence more than casual partners. This can mainly be explained by the fact that risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners (30 versus 1.5 UAI [unprotected anal intercourse] acts annually)."[41]
· These findings confirmed an earlier study by the Dutch Department of Health and Environment, which found that 67 percent of HIV-positive men aged 30 and younger had been infected by a steady partner. The study concluded: "In recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one."[42]
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk
The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false:
· The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW (women who have sex with women) was similar to all wsw."[43] One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."[44]

Greater Risk for Suicide

Homosexual and lesbian relationships experience a far greater rate of mental health problems compared to married couples.

· A twins study that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.[45]

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships

Research indicates very high levels of violence in homosexual and lesbian relationships:
· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[46]
· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The researchers found that "the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[47]
· A study of lesbian couples reported in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time."[48]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Island and Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[49]

Gay and lesbian vs. other opposite-sex intimate partner relationships

Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage.
· The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[50]

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_7.gif

Source: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, 30.

Marriage vs. Other Types of Intimate Partner Relationships
· A Bureau of Justice Statistics (an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice) report found that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[51] Women who were not married to their "intimate partner" (i.e., were cohabiting), experienced a rate of violence four times higher than that of married women (11.3 per thousand vs. 2.6 per thousand). [52]

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_8.gif

Source: "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 31, 2002: 4.

Homosexual and Lesbian Couples vs. Married Couples
When homosexual and lesbian relationships are directly compared with married couples, the difference in the domestic partner violence is pronounced:
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_9.gif

Sources: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE

By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:
· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]
· Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:
For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
· The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]
Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]

The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.

Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., is senior fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Dr. Dailey and Peter Sprigg recently co-authored Getting It Straight: What the Research Says About Homosexuality.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
END NOTES
1. Robert Gebeloff and Mary Jo Patterson, "Married and Gay Couples Are Not All that Different" Times-Picayune (November 22, 2003).
2. Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001): 1.
3. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996" Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (February 2002): 5.
4. "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org.
5. Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.
6. Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
7. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.
8. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
9. Michael W. Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170.
10. E. O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994 ): 216.
11. "Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring" PR Newswire (August 4, 1994).
12. Xiridou, 1031.
13. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
14. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
15. "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998: 20.
16. Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.
17. David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000): 73.
18. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984): 252, 253.
19. Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," 354.
20. Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993): 9.
21. Dan Black, et al., "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources," Demography 37 (May 2000): 141.
22. "DP1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:Vermont" U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data.
23. Fred Bayles, "Vermont's Gay Civil Unions Mostly Affairs of the Heart," USA Today (January 7, 2004): 1.
24. Tavia Simmons and Martin O'Connell, "Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households:2000," Census 2000 Special Reports (U.S. Census Bureau, February 2003), 4, Table 2. Online at: http:www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf.
25. "Facts:Population," Directory and Complete Guide to Sweden, 2000: available at: www.sweden.com.
26. Scott Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't' to Nuptials; Unions" Baltimore Sun (January 16, 2004): 1A.
27. "At a Glance: Netherlands Statistics" UNICEF:available at: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/netherlands_statistics.html.
28. "OLR Backgrounder: Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships," OLR Research Report (October 9, 2002): 1.
29. Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," Weekly Standard (February 2, 2004): 26.
30. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66 (April, 2001): 167.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. "Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000" (Census 2000 Special Reports, February 2003): 2.
34. Stacey and Biblarz, 167.
35. "Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000," 10.
36. Ibid.
37. David M. Smith and Gary J. Gates, "Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States: Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Households," Human Rights Campaign (August 22, 2001): 2.
38. Dan Black et al., "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population," "4.7 percent of men in the combined samples have had at least one same-sex experience since age 18, but only 2.5 percent of men have engaged in exclusively same-sex sex over the year preceding the survey. Similarly, 3.5 percent of women have had at least one same-sex sexual experience, but only 1.4 percent have had exclusively same-sex sex over the year preceding the survey." (141)
39. A.P.M. Coxon et al., "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS (July 1993):877-882.
40. G. J. Hart et al., "Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992," AIDS (July 1993): 863-869, cited in "Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand," Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
41. Xiridou, et al., 1033.
42. Jon Garbo, "More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners," GayHealth (July 25, 2001).
43. "Sexually Transmitted Infections," 347.
44. Ibid.
45. R. Herrell, et al., "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
46. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret:Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
47. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 46.
48. William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention (New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000): 393.
49. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.
50. "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30.
51. "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2000): 11.
52. Ibid., 4.
53. Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993):398, 400.
54. Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997): 213.
55. Mary Mendola, The Mendola Report (New York: Crown, 1980):53.
56. William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972): 208.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I wonder where Liz Cheney fits in all this............

[BacktoBasics]

I stopped reading after this


The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

[boutons_deux]

who TF cares about VRWC sliming the personal choices of consenting adults and their relationships? dickless, frustrated Repug/rightwing voyeurs and authoritarian "Christian" supremacists.

"Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council"

:lol authoritarian "Christian" supremacists judging negatively anybody who doesn't conform to their constipated "Bible-based" morality.

[BacktoBasics]

Now that I've browsed I think these kinds of reports are an insult to even average intelligence.

Most anyone with any common sense could see that the large majority of the comparisons made here are insulting and unworthy.

You can't draw a comparison between the living free and a group that has been stifled globally for last few centuries and then claim that "the facts" simply don't justify the means.

[spursncowboys]

B2B: 1.belittle
2. discredit
3. avoid factual data

[Crookshanks]

None of that information is of any surprise to me - but it's nice to see documentation to back up my views.

[BacktoBasics]

B2B: 1.belittle
2. discredit
3. avoid factual dataIts useless factual data.

Its like documenting how many blacks rode on a bus after segregation and then suggesting that we should have kept slavery around because most blacks statistically haven't hopped on a via.

You can make a statistic about anything. Just because there's a number associated doesn't automatically mean it has relevance.

How long did it take for blacks to fully integrate in to society? At least on a reasonable level. 15 years? 20? You can't draw statistics between a free group and a discriminated one. It makes no sense.

Only a bigoted asshole would conclude that its pertinent to compare a minority that has been beaten down for a few hundred years to the average free roaming human. Nearly every single statistic displayed is a joke.

Did it ever cross your ignorant bigoted mind that homosexuals aren't marrying, even where its allowed, because they still feel targeted. Even though legally they could marry. Doing so could potentially open the door to additional discrimination. How many are still in the closet...having closet relationships? How many fear losing their jobs over exercising a new right?

How can you even begin to draw a statistical comparison when one of the groups is discriminated against, openly.

[BacktoBasics]

None of that information is of any surprise to me - but it's nice to see documentation to back up my views.Documentation? Pointless statistical garbage designed to discriminate against those that are already down. Disgusting.

[MiamiHeat]

Good post, spursncowboys.

The gay huggers will always insult open minded thinkers like us, who refuse to just 'accept' every single politically correct trend there is.

I think they feel a self-esteem boost by being a part of a "movement" to "free gay ppls"

[jack sommerset]

Gay people are really, really horny. It's hard for them to stay faithful. I can't imagine 10 percent of the gays staying together after they get hitched.

Bill Mahr says all the time if you are a racist, chances are you are a republican. I agree with that statement. For the homos, if you are a pedophilia chances are you are a fag. Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture such as men fucking kids. You have to be really horny and/or screwed up in the head to fuck other dudes and/or kids.

I will always vote "no" to gay marriage but if they pass it, no big deal. America has bigger problems to deal with.

For the record, I am not a gay hater. It's only my opinion. If a gay dude needed my blood to live I would gladly give it to them. GLADLY give it to them. I'm just saying all these gay rights go a little overboard. Gay men wanting to get married. Too funny! Teaching gay sex to kids.Too sick. 1 percent of America is gay but some believe we should teach it in school.Give the other 99 percent of us straight people a break.

[mogrovejo]

Should individuals be prohibited from discriminating against people that adopt behaviours that they find wrong or disgusting?

For example, should Back2Basics be allowed to discriminate against racists, homophobes, smokers, etc (assuming, for the sake of the argument, he doesn't like those people)?

[BacktoBasics]

Good post, spursncowboys.

The gay huggers will always insult open minded thinkers like us, who refuse to just 'accept' every single politically correct trend there is.

I think they feel a self-esteem boost by being a part of a "movement" to "free gay ppls"Very open minded of you to keep the free will of others down.

How many criminals become millionaires after leaving jail? We shouldn't allow them to have jobs since little to none of them have the desire to seek out wealth.

We shouldn't feed the anorexic because statistics show that they don't appreciate a good steak dinner.

Lets ban adoption because statistics show those kids aren't loved by their parents so why would a stranger love them?

STUPID FUCKING SHIT YOU PEOPLE POST.

[Winehole23]

The gay huggers will always insult open minded thinkers like us, who refuse to just 'accept' every single politically correct trend there is.Is this a pitch for the new Judd Apatow bromance? :hat

[BacktoBasics]

Bill Mahr says all the time if you are a racist, chances are you are a republican. I agree with that statement. For the homos, if you are a pedophilia chances are you are a fag. Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture such as men fucking kids. You have to be really horny and/or screwed up in the head to fuck other dudes and/or kids.


You've got to be kidding me. You're one stupid motherfucker.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm going to take the hate in this thread to another level.

[BacktoBasics]

Can you spot the black man

http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz343/FreddyKruegerGirl13/black.jpg

[spursncowboys]

Good post, spursncowboys.

The gay huggers will always insult open minded thinkers like us, who refuse to just 'accept' every single politically correct trend there is.

I think they feel a self-esteem boost by being a part of a "movement" to "free gay ppls"

I love how they equate the civil rights movement with theirs.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm51/Drew_Gares/thelulz.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c139/prettyspiders/postsecret/Stupid.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk108/sizzlebizzle_2008/IMG00016.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l213/lilshorty98404/Stupid%20ass/Papi/l_01aecad1780da3d1b1badc3668a92a9f.jpg

[spursncowboys]

b2b: why don't you comment on the specific data you disagree with.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af359/percey/umad.png

[BacktoBasics]

b2b: why don't you comment on the specific data you disagree with.
Why don't you fuck your mother.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/bryalex_2009/Zebrahead/StupidFatAmericans.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

They're all pedos

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa272/andrew_pics/1043ho7.gif

[BacktoBasics]

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu17/Captain_Plant/Icons/Random/churchsign.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/niksroute66/gaysanta.jpg

[spursncowboys]

Why don't you fuck your mother.

:lol


supress the information. load it with pages of nonsense. quickly!!

[BacktoBasics]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d3/ace_10121/guidos%20must%20die/gino13.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

Suppressing the info. :rollingeyefuck: Yes. I will confuse the world by posting crap on ST.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt9/cannonhawke/9cypfqbgcnvhisxjgragexu.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a342/KneeChee27/Pointless%20or%20Stupid%20Photoshops/Snake.png

[BacktoBasics]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g25/Courtneyzx/claremontastic%20reunion/IMG_0401.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x190/mgabehart/DSC00604_0042.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu247/David_MSP/Home%20Theatre%20Journey/DSC02399_1.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq95/psychohistoric/ducttapesuit.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

Very open minded of you to keep the free will of others down.

How many criminals become millionaires after leaving jail? We shouldn't allow them to have jobs since little to none of them have the desire to seek out wealth.

We shouldn't feed the anorexic because statistics show that they don't appreciate a good steak dinner.

Lets ban adoption because statistics show those kids aren't loved by their parents so why would a stranger love them?

STUPID FUCKING SHIT YOU PEOPLE POST.

Flawed argument because nobody is preventing gays from

1) being together as a live in couple
2) entering a legal civil union or 'new name' institution with all the same rights



The problem here is MARRIAGE is Man + Woman.

Period. We do NOT WANT IT REDEFINED.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m79/fercho_trueno/niggasricer.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

Flawed argument because nobody is preventing gays from

1) being together as a live in couple
2) entering a legal civil union or 'new name' institution with all the same rights



The problem here is MARRIAGE is Man + Woman.

Period. We do NOT WANT IT REDEFINED.http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/kaitlinmariee/ballls.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k74/Neeno_2006/1248931831474.jpg

[Blake]

B2B: 1.belittle
2. discredit
3. avoid factual data

The netherlands homosexual divorce rate is basically the same as the hetero rate at about 1% per year.

snc: 1. post from biased web site using old sources
2. ignore factual data
3. start another failed thread

[BacktoBasics]

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/lalaurenfosho11/7fbb15b2c738167af27210b6d0400672-1.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

3. start another failed threadI'll do some posting for you. A tribute if you will.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr220/Dwa_101/EPIC_TRAIN_CRASH_SRSLY_FAIL.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af147/BlargBabble/fail.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i856.photobucket.com/albums/ab121/brentworley/walmart_fail.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz226/selenaqui/fail-owned-dartboard-fail.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w89/tracyfm/FAIL/Fail5.png

[BacktoBasics]

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp345/UltimaAJ/fail.jpg

[mogrovejo]

Why don't you fuck your mother.

:rollinmeltdown.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz330/qubikz00/dead.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa272/andrew_pics/nooooo.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i579.photobucket.com/albums/ss237/godess48/deadjoshua.jpg

[spursncowboys]

still no argument about the article. Nothing specific.
Blake: what part of the article is just biased? What information isn't cited by a credible source? What facts were left out?

[spursncowboys]

still no argument about the article. Nothing specific.
Blake: what part of the article is just biased? What information isn't cited by a credible source? What facts were left out?

[BacktoBasics]

still no argument about the article. Nothing specific.
Blake: what part of the article is just biased? What information isn't cited by a credible source? What facts were left out?They're pointless statistics because the variables aren't even remotely comparable. You can't compare the successful variations of the color blue by comparing black. There is no way possible to compare centuries of man/woman marriage to the relationships of gay people or what few legal unions they have.

Its not even reasonable.

...and fuck you.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm gonna start again.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/Pasticbmxrider/food.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m283/JDEKA/december%2006/food.jpg

[Blake]

Flawed argument because nobody is preventing gays from

1) being together as a live in couple
2) entering a legal civil union or 'new name' institution with all the same rights



The problem here is MARRIAGE is Man + Woman.

Period. We do NOT WANT IT REDEFINED.

which is safer, lesbian sex or heterosexual sex?

[BacktoBasics]

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr52/wesdaniellebiu/December09018.jpg

[spursncowboys]

still no specific argument that has merit. an article with so many different subjects cannot be just rounded up with the "apples and oranges" excuse.
B2B: you didn't even read the article.:lol

[BacktoBasics]

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae276/dhanushelanthoor/chinese%20market/10.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

still no specific argument that has merit. an article with so many different subjects cannot be just rounded up with the "apples and oranges" excuse.
B2B: you didn't even read the article.:lol
Its fucking insulting. Biased. Rooted in bigotry. Fuck you.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz45/csteele1162/Guangzhou/DSCN4280.jpg

[Blake]

still no argument about the article. Nothing specific.
Blake: what part of the article is just biased? What information isn't cited by a credible source? What facts were left out?

The netherlands homosexual divorce rate is basically the same as the hetero rate at about 1% per year.

the web site is biased and the article ridiculously flips the stats around to make heterosexual marriage look that much better.


Married Couples
· A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.

hilarious.

[BacktoBasics]

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/kaosspit213/wow.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k40/BHargrove1218/Humor/dumb.jpg

[jack sommerset]

still no specific argument that has merit. an article with so many different subjects cannot be just rounded up with the "apples and oranges" excuse.
B2B: you didn't even read the article.:lol

I am not trying to be mean but the dude sells trailors, married like 5 times, has step kids that hate him, makes no money, whines all the fucking time, gets along with no one,,,,,the guy is a LOSER. Let him rant. I am surprised he has not killed himself yet. This is good for him.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/221179774_4a82124fa9.jpg

[BacktoBasics]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c200/PCRenegade71/dumb.jpg

[TDMVPDPOY]

i think both types get the same serving of meat right? hahhahahahahaa

[BacktoBasics]

I am not trying to be mean but the dude sells trailors, married like 5 times, has step kids that hate him, makes no money, whines all the fucking time, gets along with no one,,,,,the guy is a LOSER. Let him rant. I am surprised he has not killed himself yet. This is good for him.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/221179774_4a82124fa9.jpgYou can't even spell "trailer".

[jack sommerset]

You can't even spell "trailer".

:lol No need to until now, loser.

[BacktoBasics]

:lol No need to until now, loser.You're right being able to spell simple words would certainly not discredit your ability to call someone a loser.

[Crookshanks]

So according to B2B, the fact that gays have not been able to legally marry causes them to be extremely promiscuous and pretty much incapable of being in a monogamous, long-term relationship - riiigggghhttttt.

Just look at some of the high-profile gay couples who were the ones to champion the cause and the first to marry once it was legalized - they're already divorced!

[BacktoBasics]

So according to B2B, the fact that gays have not been able to legally marry causes them to be extremely promiscuous and pretty much incapable of being in a monogamous, long-term relationship - riiigggghhttttt.


I never said that. I said it wasn't a reasonable statistical comparison to make. One group has had the ability to act freely the other has not. Never said anything about promiscuity. Good job putting words in my mouth.

[BacktoBasics]

:lol No need to until now, loser.Since you're better than me and I don't make any money lets post our W2's for the last three years. Got a paycheck stub with a YTD on it? I'm willing to bet that my loser job pays better than yours. Post it up.

[Blake]

Just look at some of the high-profile gay couples who were the ones to champion the cause and the first to marry once it was legalized - they're already divorced!

just like many other high-profile hetero couples!

[jack sommerset]

You're right being able to spell simple words would certainly not discredit your ability to call someone a loser.

S3_lwPuPnG0

[BacktoBasics]

S3_lwPuPnG0Post your W2 Mr. Successful. Post a paycheck stub.

Come on big guy I want to fuck you.

[jack sommerset]

Since you're better than me and I don't make any money lets post our W2's for the last three years. Got a paycheck stub with a YTD on it? I'm willing to bet that my loser job pays better than yours. Post it up.

I'm sure you would loser considering you have nothing to lose. You certainly have little humility. I am moving on cryass. Good day to you. Try not to let your little feelings get hurt from peeps on the internet. LOSER!!!!!

[clambake]

rednecks get owned again. just look at the statistics.

[Winehole23]

Me chinese me play joke...?I heard that one a few times before, say, 1977.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm sure you would loser considering you have nothing to lose. You certainly have little humility. I am moving on cryass. Good day to you. Try not to let your little feelings get hurt from peeps on the internet. LOSER!!!!!What exactly do you have to lose by posting your paycheck? If you're so successful then you have everything in the world to be proud of. I know you're moving on. Worthless pussies like you never did have the balls to bark and then bite. Bark and run little pussy.

My offer stands. You called me a loser. You said I make shit for pay.....post it and prove yourself right.

[spursncowboys]

Post your W2 Mr. Successful. Post a paycheck stub.

Come on big guy I want to fuck you.
post your credit score. plus your savings and investments.

[spursncowboys]

What exactly do you have to lose by posting your paycheck? If you're so successful then you have everything in the world to be proud of. I know you're moving on. Worthless pussies like you never did have the balls to bark and then bite. Bark and run little pussy.

My offer stands. You called me a loser. You said I make shit for pay.....post it and prove yourself right.

you wont even make a credible argument why and to what extent this article is incorrect.

[jack sommerset]

you wont even make a credible argument why and to what extent this article is incorrect.

He is betting (whatever that means) he makes more money than someone he has no clue about. It's a total guess. No clue what I do for a living. No clue how much I work. No clue where I live. No clue what I drive. No clue about anything except he does not like my post.

He is clearly shaken and upset because the things he tells us about everyday has now come back to hurt his little feelings. It's a look inside the stupidity that is B2B and why he works at that deadend job selling trailers. And why he has been married many times. Why his kids hate him. Why he does not get along with anyone.

He has nothing else to say. Someone would have to be even more DUMB than b2b to post their personal information on a website. What a fucking tool!:lol

I try to help the guy. Tell people to let him rant. That he has shit life and this is what I get. So not cool. Even after he calls me a name for posting my opinion.

[BacktoBasics]

post your credit score. plus your savings and investments.
Sure. I have an account at Transunion. If you insist on verifying I'd even be willing to give you my password if you want to confirm. I sit in the 650ish range in all three bureaus right now. I just sent off payments to all 3 of my credit cards that will bring my available/limit down below 35%. Should push all my scores up around 710.

I work here but I also own a business. I can print out our numbers on Quickbooks and post them if you'd like to see that as well.

I don't have much in assests as I liquidated most of my higher end things like cars and collectibles to raise money and clear debt in anticipation of building a house on our land.

Just tell me what you want to see and I'll open up. I'm not rich but I do okay and have strong credit.

[BacktoBasics]

you wont even make a credible argument why and to what extent this article is incorrect.Its not a matter of correct or incorrect. I'm sure the numbers are somewhat accurate its the fact that the comparisons are pointless. Creating a statistic to prove a biased point proves nothing. The stat might be right but the comparison holds no value.

I'm not comparing the plight of black to the of gays but statistically, like I mentioned on the first page, there is no value to comparing the number of blacks boarding a bus pre-segregation to blacks boarding a bus post-segregation. A year or so after. You can create the stat but it has little to no value overall.

You have displayed stats that sound interesting but are only crafted to push a bigoted mission.


He is betting (whatever that means) he makes more money than someone he has no clue about. It's a total guess. No clue what I do for a living. No clue how much I work. No clue where I live. No clue what I drive. No clue about anything except he does not like my post.

He is clearly shaken and upset because the things he tells us about everyday has now come back to hurt his little feelings. It's a look inside the stupidity that is B2B and why he works at that deadend job selling trailers. And why he has been married many times. Why his kids hate him. Why he does not get along with anyone.

He has nothing else to say. Someone would have to be even more DUMB than b2b to post their personal information on a website. What a fucking tool!:lol

I try to help the guy. Tell people to let him rant. That he has shit life and this is what I get. So not cool. Even after he calls me a name for posting my opinion.
You know nothing of what my kids think of me. You're just being a fucking prick trying to get a rise out of me. I've never posted anything about my relationship with my kids. You have no idea how many times I've been married and/or how many times I may or may not have been divorced. You know nothing about my job other than what I do.

Post your shit and prove you have a better more successful job than I do or be done. I don't think you make shit. What? 30k a year. What do you do? Stop barking and start proving.

[BacktoBasics]

Jack bark loud.

Jack run.

Jack come back bark more.

Jack run again.

Jack even too lazy to photoshop a fake W2 at his imaginary NASA job with his imaginary pay.

Jack prove nothing.

Jack come back bark more.

[BacktoBasics]

Come on jack. How about you prove something instead of just randomly spewing insults. Prove you earn more than me? Prove to us where you work? Anything jack prove something.

[BacktoBasics]

I want you jack. I want to know how you live. Where you live. What you do with your time. I want to see how a guy like jack goes through his days. I'm gonna find you jack and I'm going to watch what you do from a short distance so I can finally see how a jack shows the fucking world what it is to be a man. Can I email you jack? Can I call you? You want to come see me where I work? I'll give you the address. Can I buy your time? I'll pay for even just a little of what you have.

[BacktoBasics]

I didn't see your email on your profile page. How can I contact you jack?

I did see this.

Friends
jack sommerset has not made any friends yet

I thought I was the one with no friends?

Well let me know jack? I just want to crawl up inside you.

[BacktoBasics]

Is this you jack

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jack-sommerset/8/7b5/82a



Current

* Met packer at Tyson Foods

Education

* Howard Payne University

Industry
Consumer Electronics

What's a "met" packer?

[BacktoBasics]

ooooohhhhhhh jaaaaaaaack. Come back.

[jack sommerset]

Dude, relax. I am trying to help you. They are not your kids. They are another mans kids. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. You hate that loser job. Plenty of reasons why. You should go!!! I know it will make you feel better about yourself, atleast for the short time.

LOL at you searching the net for a Jack Sommerset!!!!

[BacktoBasics]

Dude, relax. I am trying to help you. They are not your kids. They are another mans kids. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. You hate that loser job. Plenty of reasons why. You should go!!! I know it will make you feel better about yourself, atleast for the short time.

LOL at you searching the net for a Jack Sommerset!!!!Seriously what's a "met" packer.

What is them being another mans kids have to do with it? Why would that make them hate me?

Lets get together jack....and compare my stubs to what you make as a met packer for Tyson Foods.

[Duff McCartney]

As Benjamin Disraeli once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[jack sommerset]

Seriously what's a "met" packer.

What is them being another mans kids have to do with it? Why would that make them hate me?

Lets get together jack....and compare my stubs to what you make as a met packer for Tyson Foods.

Idiot has convinced himself I am a meat packer at Tysons and my name is Jack Sommerset. :lol

Your resume as a loser continues to grow!

[Phenomanul]

The statistics on homosexual vs. heterosexual promiscuity... even if not as extreme as suggested, reveal tendencies that cannot be 'positively' influenced by B2B's 'people roaming freely' factor (which was actually a valid statistical observation on his part...)

In terms of STDs, however, such promiscuity would be detrimental to society... in many ways.

But no matter what we say... B2B is only able to interpret our varying personal objections as hate... I my case, I was taught to abhor the sinful homosexual lifestyle without making the people involved the object of hate... there is a huge difference. Much like we are taught to abhor murder... without necessarily hating someone who has committed murder. Worldviews are slowly shifting towards uniformitarianism... where morally everything is 'gray' and nothing is ever 'black' and 'white'... Apparently, that's the world that most of the liberals on this board want for their grandchildren.

[Duff McCartney]

But no matter what we say... B2B is only able to interpret our varying personal objections as hate... I my case, I was taught to abhor the sinful homosexual lifestyle without making the people involved the object of hate... there is a huge difference. Much like we are taught to abhor murder... without necessarily hating someone who has committed murder. Worldviews are slowly shifting towards uniformitarianism... where morally everything is 'gray' and nothing is ever 'black' and 'white'... Apparently, that's the world that most of the liberals on this board want for their grandchildren.

Wait a minute, so hating the sin and not the sinner is not the same as a "gray" worldview? Enlighten me.

It's exactly the same..if you hate the sin you have to hate the sinner. That's where the sin comes from and who committed it.

Regardless, the world is not black and white. It's always gonna be gray..it always was gray. People imagine it's black and white but it's just not so.

[Phenomanul]

Wait a minute, so hating the sin and not the sinner is not the same as a "gray" worldview? Enlighten me.

It's exactly the same..if you hate the sin you have to hate the sinner. That's where the sin comes from and who committed it.

Your inability to understand the difference is largely based out of your own hate towards the Christian principles which outline the difference. It's always amusing to hear people like Bill Maher constantly gripe about Christians' supposed intolerance, when he is one of the most hateful people around. His allegations are difficult to hear only because the sound of his own 'intolerance' is louder than that of those he is criticizing. Like most anti-theists, he doesn't understand this poignant difference.

BTW, most Christians I know embrace and employ the ''hating the sin and not the sinner'' approach. Apparently though, your refusal to validate its underlying premise stems from from the fact that it counters your own allegations that somehow we are hating on homosexuals themselves. In other words, you would never accept it precisely because it directly invalidates the notion that we hate them.


Regardless, the world is not black and white. It's always gonna be gray..it always was gray. People imagine it's black and white but it's just not so.


Really???

So why are laws necessary? Why are murder, theft and rape (among other acts) widely viewed as heinous?

[Cry Havoc]

:lol I knew it was only a matter of time before the idiocy of jack met the sublime outrage of B2B.

This thread pwns.

[Cry Havoc]

BTW, most Christians I know embrace and employ the ''hating the sin and not the sinner'' approach. Apparently though, your refusal to validate its underlying premise stems from from the fact that it counters your own allegations that somehow we are hating on homosexuals themselves. In other words, you would never accept it precisely because it directly invalidates the notion that we hate them.

And as one Christian to another, I do not believe it is right for Christians to impose their beliefs on other individuals, nor push that belief into government based on a marriage of church and state. I do not believe it is up to the church to run this country or use a faith-based system for a method of government. It fails, and it fails miserably every time it's attempted.

It's sad how many times it must be stated that Jesus actually sought out a prostitute and lifted her up -- the polar opposite of what many Christians try to do when engaged in a debate about homosexuality.

Love first. That's what Jesus said. I see almost none of that in the present day Christian faith. It's all about massive churches with multi-million dollar sound systems and criticizing everyone else, blaming the world for it's sins instead of showing kindness before agenda.

[jack sommerset]

And as one Christian to another, I do not believe it is right for Christians to impose their beliefs on other individuals, nor push that belief into government based on a marriage of church and state. I do not believe it is up to the church to run this country or use a faith-based system for a method of government. It fails, and it fails miserably every time it's attempted.

It's sad how many times it must be stated that Jesus actually sought out a prostitute and lifted her up -- the polar opposite of what many Christians try to do when engaged in a debate about homosexuality.

Love first. That's what Jesus said. I see almost none of that in the present day Christian faith. It's all about massive churches with multi-million dollar sound systems and criticizing everyone else, blaming the world for it's sins instead of showing kindness before agenda.

Honestly, you are the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen. Now you are claiming to be a Christian. :lol

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5, 24-25

God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations." 14:24

Josiah, with God's approval, broke down the houses of the sodomites. 23:7

Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included on the list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10

Son, your the idiot. Lucky for you the bible is just another book and there is no hell for you to go to.

[Cry Havoc]

Honestly, you are the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen. Now you are claiming to be a Christian. :lol

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5, 24-25

God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations." 14:24

Josiah, with God's approval, broke down the houses of the sodomites. 23:7

Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included on the list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10

Son, your the idiot. Lucky for you the bible is just another book and there is no hell for you to go to.

Look at jack, attempting to debate things he doesn't fully understand. How par for the course of you.

[jack sommerset]

Look at jack, attempting to debate things he doesn't fully understand. How par for the course of you.

:lol Poor Cry Havoc.

One day you will pull your head out of your ass and see what we all see. A hypocrite. And I've have seen plenty of people here say the same thing about you. I have shown many people the spew you spread. You have made alot of people laugh. God bless! But if this is how you are in the real world, seek help mofo. Seek it fast!

[jack sommerset]

:lol at Havoc claiming to be a christian now. THAT IS AWESOME.

[spursncowboys]

And as one Christian to another, I do not believe it is right for Christians to impose their beliefs on other individuals, nor push that belief into government based on a marriage of church and state. I do not believe it is up to the church to run this country or use a faith-based system for a method of government. It fails, and it fails miserably every time it's attempted.

It's sad how many times it must be stated that Jesus actually sought out a prostitute and lifted her up -- the polar opposite of what many Christians try to do when engaged in a debate about homosexuality.

Love first. That's what Jesus said. I see almost none of that in the present day Christian faith. It's all about massive churches with multi-million dollar sound systems and criticizing everyone else, blaming the world for it's sins instead of showing kindness before agenda.
You are exactly right that jesus was a god of love. He also came for the poor and weak and the sinners. Max Lucado would always say everyone is welcome in his church. His church would welcome everyone with an open heart and an open bible. Love the sinner, hate the sin does not mean accept sin. I don't understand what a faith based system is. Do you have a problem with pastors running for the govt?

[ploto]

The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Most heterosexual relationships also last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

[jack sommerset]

You are exactly right that jesus was a god of love. He also came for the poor and weak and the sinners. Max Lucado would always say everyone is welcome in his church. His church would welcome everyone with an open heart and an open bible. Love the sinner, hate the sin does not mean accept sin. I don't understand what a faith based system is. Do you have a problem with pastors running for the govt?

I am telling you right now, that dude is no Christian. Perhaps he has a cousin and a parent that told him he was but that guy no way practices his so called religion. That claim was one of Havocs best!

[BacktoBasics]

:lol Poor Cry Havoc.

One day you will pull your head out of your ass and see what we all see. A hypocrite. And I've have seen plenty of people here say the same thing about you. I have shown many people the spew you spread. You have made alot of people laugh. God bless! But if this is how you are in the real world, seek help mofo. Seek it fast!
You just don't know when to stop. Attack attack attack.

Look friend I don't know where your nic came from but there's a jack sommerset who works at Tyson Foods in San Antonio with as bad as spelling as you.

So where do you work jack? Why won't you return my PMs? Lets settle this "B2B is a loser who doesn't make any money".

[Duff McCartney]

Your inability to understand the difference is largely based out of your own hate towards the Christian principles which outline the difference. It's always amusing to hear people like Bill Maher constantly gripe about Christians' supposed intolerance, when he is one of the most hateful people around. His allegations are difficult to hear only because the sound of his own 'intolerance' is louder than that of those he is criticizing. Like most anti-theists, he doesn't understand this poignant difference.

BTW, most Christians I know embrace and employ the ''hating the sin and not the sinner'' approach. Apparently though, your refusal to validate its underlying premise stems from from the fact that it counters your own allegations that somehow we are hating on homosexuals themselves. In other words, you would never accept it precisely because it directly invalidates the notion that we hate them.

Bill Maher has never followed a religion that preaches tolerance. Regardless, he's not part of the debate.

My arguement is that hating the sin and not the sinner is the ultimate gray worldview. Which you yourself earlier looked down upon I don't know why. People do bad shit..therefore they must be bad right? No..they just fall under temptation and it's not always black or white.

[Phenomanul]

And as one Christian to another, I do not believe it is right for Christians to impose their beliefs on other individuals, nor push that belief into government based on a marriage of church and state. I do not believe it is up to the church to run this country or use a faith-based system for a method of government. It fails, and it fails miserably every time it's attempted.

It's sad how many times it must be stated that Jesus actually sought out a prostitute and lifted her up -- the polar opposite of what many Christians try to do when engaged in a debate about homosexuality.

Love first. That's what Jesus said. I see almost none of that in the present day Christian faith. It's all about massive churches with multi-million dollar sound systems and criticizing everyone else, blaming the world for it's sins instead of showing kindness before agenda.

I agree with most of what you said, especially your last paragraph. But I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on others. Duff asked for 'enlightenment;' I simply explained my position. One which has been cast aside numerous times in light of the inconvenience it poses to their view of our beliefs.

It's ridiculous to assume that Jesus hated the adultress that was brought before him, about as rediculous as suggesting that he condoned the adulterous act itself. In fact, when expounding on the topic of adultery - his view was considered far more extreme (lustful thoughts were considered adultery in his eyes; not just the act itself).

As for influencing the laws of the land... that's fair game... we are entitled to lobby for what we see fit just as they are entitled to do the same... whatever wins out, wins out... that is one of the core compromises of a democratic system.

[BacktoBasics]

Apparently, that's the world that most of the liberals on this board want for their grandchildren.I do. The world we live in, like it or not, isn't black and white. The variables of existence are far more reaching than ever before. I prefer a world where I or my neighbor is allowed to live their lives how they choose. I don't want my ability to exercise free will to be dictated by a religion I don't believe in. I don't want my elected officials guided by their imagination of a God to represent my existence. There are some reasonable fundamental laws that I think society as a whole can agree to live by. Such as theft, murder, rape and so on. You want have a Christian club that doesn't provide a ceremony for gays so be it. Enjoy your club. Just no place for that kind of discrimination in our government. Jack and Jane have certain rights as a couple then Jack and Jack should have those same rights under the law. Your religion has no business controlling our government.

[spursncowboys]

Bill Maher has never followed a religion that preaches tolerance. Regardless, he's not part of the debate.

My arguement is that hating the sin and not the sinner is the ultimate gray worldview. Which you yourself earlier looked down upon I don't know why. People do bad shit..therefore they must be bad right? No..they just fall under temptation and it's not always black or white.

So the reasoning behind their act defines if it is evil or not? So if someone who was molested as a 5 year old kid grows up and starts molesting 5 year old kids is not evil?

[Phenomanul]

Bill Maher has never followed a religion that preaches tolerance. Regardless, he's not part of the debate.

My arguement is that hating the sin and not the sinner is the ultimate gray worldview. Which you yourself earlier looked down upon I don't know why. People do bad shit..therefore they must be bad right? No..they just fall under temptation and it's not always black or white.

I'm annoyed by many of the people on this forum... and I'm sure the feeling is reciprocal. That doesn't mean I hate them... for me to do so would mean that I was wishing them 'ill will'... can't really say I've ever been driven there.

People saying they "want to beat the living shit out of someone" and actually doing so... constitutes an act of hate. I oppose unnecesary abortions that don't directly jeopardize a mother's health. That doesn't mean I go around sabotaging abortion clinics, or worse, killing the doctors.

Hating the sin simply means that I don't condone it... the homosexual lifestyle disgusts me. It doesn't mean I look down on those that practice it. I don't go beating them up. Nor does it assume that I am faultless in other areas and in a position to judge them for it.

[MiamiHeat]

And as one Christian to another, I do not believe it is right for Christians to impose their beliefs on other individuals, nor push that belief into government based on a marriage of church and state. I do not believe it is up to the church to run this country or use a faith-based system for a method of government. It fails, and it fails miserably every time it's attempted.

It's sad how many times it must be stated that Jesus actually sought out a prostitute and lifted her up -- the polar opposite of what many Christians try to do when engaged in a debate about homosexuality.

Love first. That's what Jesus said. I see almost none of that in the present day Christian faith. It's all about massive churches with multi-million dollar sound systems and criticizing everyone else, blaming the world for it's sins instead of showing kindness before agenda.


I'm an atheist and I subscribe to the Hate the Sin, not the Sinner viewpoint.

and no, I don't believe in Sins.

[spursncowboys]

I agree with most of what you said, especially your last paragraph. But I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on others. Duff asked for 'enlightenment;' I simply explained my position. One which has been cast aside numerous times in light of the inconvenience it poses to their view of our beliefs.

It's ridiculous to assume that Jesus hated the adultress that was brought before him, about as rediculous as suggesting that he condoned the adulterous act itself. In fact, when expounding on the topic of adultery - his view was considered far more extreme (lustful thoughts were considered adultery in his eyes; not just the act itself).

As for influencing the laws of the land... that's fair game... we are entitled to lobby for what we see fit just as they are entitled to do the same... whatever wins out, wins out... that is one of the core compromises of a democratic system.

+1 100%. Couldn't have said it better.

[Duff McCartney]

I'm annoyed by many of the people on this forum... and I'm sure the feeling is reciprocal. That doesn't mean I hate them... for me to do so would mean that I was wishing them 'ill will'... can't really say I've ever been driven there.

People saying they "want to beat the living shit out of someone" and actually doing so... constitutes an act of hate. I oppose unnecesary abortions that don't directly jeopardize a mother's health. That doesn't mean I go around sabotaging abortion clinics, or worse, killing the doctors.

Hating the sin simply means that I don't condone it... the homosexual lifestyle disgusts me. It doesn't mean I look down on those that practice it. I don't go beating them up. Nor does it assume that I am faultless in other areas and in a position to judge them for it.

Like I said the ultimate gray worldview.

[Phenomanul]

Like I said the ultimate gray worldview.

It's easier for you to believe that we actually 'hate' people so that your rejection of my beliefs is justified... I understand.

[MiamiHeat]

as I said, I'm not even religious. I don't believe in any god

yet I am against homosexuality, the act itself.

but I would never hurt/harm/persecute/discriminate/whatever against a homosexual, because they are humans.

Humans who are confused, and are making mistakes.

[MiamiHeat]

dp

[MiamiHeat]

Homosexuals live a perversion

a rejection of their natural birth. there might be some self-loathing in there somewhere, or hatred towards the opposite sex for whatever reason.

Some of them have such DEEP psychological problems, they won't even accept their own gender that they were born with and wish a sex change.


It's all one big disgusting, mind-fuck, perversion, lack of discipline and acceptance of self, psychological problems, etc.

[Duff McCartney]

It's easier for you to believe that we actually 'hate' people so that your rejection of my beliefs is justified... I understand.

When did I ever say you hate anyone? I'm simply stating that it's a gray worldview...you don't look down upon gays..yet you are "disgusted" by their lifestyle. That's the ultimate gray world view..because if it was clearly black and white, you'd look down upon them and be disgusted by them. There would be no middle ground..but there is.

It's like I said...you were talking shit about having a gray worldview, when your worldview is anything but black or white.

[FromWayDowntown]

Most heterosexual relationships also last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

That was the obvious flaw in the numbers that occurred to me. The study doesn't try to compare those in committed homosexual relationships to those in committed heterosexual relationships. Instead, it tries to compare those in homosexual relationships, no matter the extent of the commitment, to fully-committed heterosexual relationships. If you expanded the world of heterosexual relationships considered by the study to include any heterosexual relationship -- not just marriages -- I suspect the same degree of promiscuity and non-commitment would be evident. But if one is trying to prove that most homosexual relationships are essentially relationships without commitment, an easy way to do that statistically is to compare those relationships to heterosexual marriages.

[jack sommerset]

You just don't know when to stop. Attack attack attack.

Look friend I don't know where your nic came from but there's a jack sommerset who works at Tyson Foods in San Antonio with as bad as spelling as you.

So where do you work jack? Why won't you return my PMs? Lets settle this "B2B is a loser who doesn't make any money".


:lol You are being a pussy. I am not going to meet you. I'm not going to fuck you. :lol I am not going to PM you. I'm not going to post personal information about me or share any with your dumbass. If you don't get any of that, I really can't help you there. This is the extent of our relationship, loser. :lol You gots to live with that nagger.

You obviously are mad about your life. I hit a nerve. You are the dumbass that came in this thread and started your lameass bullshit on me. Your little sensitive cryass needs to remember these feelings you had today because you don't want to be this upset again with a stranger on the net. That my friend is the truth. You know it. You had a mini breakdown. You searched the net for a Jack Sommerset. :lmao That brought tears to my eyes. CLASSIC!!!!!

The holidays can be hard for some. I'm sure the trailer business is a tough racket this time of the year especially with the economy. I hope you could get your fake kids gifts. If not there are a few secret santas you can contact. I think you can work google.

I am done with this lameass conversation. Hopefully you can take your own advice. The floor is yours. Have at it.

[Phenomanul]

When did I ever say you hate anyone? I'm simply stating that it's a gray worldview...you don't look down upon gays..yet you are "disgusted" by their lifestyle. That's the ultimate gray world view..because if it was clearly black and white, you'd look down upon them and be disgusted by them. There would be no middle ground..but there is.

It's like I said...you were talking shit about having a gray worldview, when your worldview is anything but black or white.


Distinction... I said 'morally' gray... a world where anything was accepted without a standard that delineated what was 'right' or 'wrong'... 'good' or 'evil'... a standard that doesn't shift. The prevalent, and accelerated societal shift to embracing moral relativism is the dynamic that is leading us to that 'grayness'...

Suggesting that homosexuality is wrong without hating the person only reflects the same standard that GOD subjects us to. We're all sinners and yet He still keeps loving us... He still extends His offer of grace (repeatedly even)... Ultimately however, unless we come before Him with the seal of His Son, we will be unable to enter His Holy presence. His standard of righteousness is unmovable and Just.

[spursncowboys]

That was the obvious flaw in the numbers that occurred to me. The study doesn't try to compare those in committed homosexual relationships to those in committed heterosexual relationships. Instead, it tries to compare those in homosexual relationships, no matter the extent of the commitment, to fully-committed heterosexual relationships. If you expanded the world of heterosexual relationships considered by the study to include any heterosexual relationship -- not just marriages -- I suspect the same degree of promiscuity and non-commitment would be evident. But if one is trying to prove that most homosexual relationships are essentially relationships without commitment, an easy way to do that statistically is to compare those relationships to heterosexual marriages.


Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
Married Couples
· A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.[2]
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_1.gif
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
· A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.[3]
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_2.gif
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
Male Homosexual Relationships
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_3.gif
Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

[spursncowboys]

:lol You are being a pussy. I am not going to meet you. I'm not going to fuck you. :lol I am not going to PM you. I'm not going to post personal information about me or share any with your dumbass. If you don't get any of that, I really can't help you there. This is the extent of our relationship, loser. :lol You gots to live with that nagger.

You obviously are mad about your life. I hit a nerve. You are the dumbass that came in this thread and started your lameass bullshit on me. Your little sensitive cryass needs to remember these feelings you had today because you don't want to be this upset again with a stranger on the net. That my friend is the truth. You know it. You had a mini breakdown. You searched the net for a Jack Sommerset. :lmao That brought tears to my eyes. CLASSIC!!!!!

The holidays can be hard for some. I'm sure the trailer business is a tough racket this time of the year especially with the economy. I hope you could get your fake kids gifts. If not there are a few secret santas you can contact. I think you can work google.

I am done with this lameass conversation. Hopefully you can take your own advice. The floor is yours. Have at it.
nagger...people who annoy you?

[MiamiHeat]

spursncowboys

they will cover their eyes and not look at the data you posted. They are caught up in being POLITICALLY CORRECT and 'feelin good' about themselves to stop and make a stand about something.

everything nowadays is "fuck it" and let anyone do whatever they want. look at where it brought us.

[jack sommerset]

spursncowboys

they will cover their eyes and not look at the data you posted. They are caught up in being POLITICALLY CORRECT and 'feelin good' about themselves to stop and make a stand about something.

everything nowadays is "fuck it" and let anyone do whatever they want. look at where it brought us.


That Havoc character is a classic example. He basically says the dumbest shit and when you call him out on it, he goes "you don't know what you are talking about" and goes sips some wine and watches Olbermann.

[FromWayDowntown]

Right. How long do heterosexual couples who don't get married stay together on the average. How long do ALL heterosexual couples stay together on average -- not just married couples, but all couples?

In other words, how many heterosexual couples that are dating, but not married, make it to their 10th or 20th anniversaries?

Compare the numbers for the homosexual couples to that number -- not just married couples -- and you'll actually compare apples to apples. Otherwise, you might as well be comparing the standardized test scores of girls who are high school seniors to the scores on the same tests for boys from kindergarten through 12th grade.

[Cry Havoc]

Right. How long do heterosexual couples who don't get married stay together on the average. How long do ALL heterosexual couples stay together on average -- not just married couples, but all couples?

It's sad that you need to spell it out like this.

People should really take courses in statistics before attempting to argue statistical data.

[ChumpDumper]

So homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because when they aren't allowed to marry, their marriages don't last.

Superior logic. :sequ

[ChumpDumper]

Also from the study: couples who do not divorce tend to stay married.:married:

[Phenomanul]

(As I stated earlier) I believe that the contextual discrepancy that governs the basis for comparison in the article/report is statistically relevant. There is an 'apples' vs. 'oranges' effect rooted in the simple clause CD posted above... the 'freely roaming society' effect B2B originally noted.

This doesn't mean that the data itself is statistically worthless, or doesn't reflect other truths even if the article itself doesn't expound them in that manner...

To me what stood out the most was the level of self-proclaimed promiscuity shared by many of those surveyed...

[PixelPusher]

To me what stood out the most was the level of self-proclaimed promiscuity shared by many of those surveyed...

Shocking that married couples don't admit to promiscuity.

[Phenomanul]

Shocking that married couples don't admit to promiscuity.

I understand the societal prevalence of extramarital affairs (even while I agree that the numbers are being downplayed by the report in the opening post)... Having said that, I don't see how that 'one-and-done' dynamic 'here and there' compares in magnitude to the staggering number of sexual partners stated by those in the surveyed homosexual pool...

500 - 1000 :wow :wow :wow

[spursncowboys]

Right. How long do heterosexual couples who don't get married stay together on the average. How long do ALL heterosexual couples stay together on average -- not just married couples, but all couples?

In other words, how many heterosexual couples that are dating, but not married, make it to their 10th or 20th anniversaries?

Compare the numbers for the homosexual couples to that number -- not just married couples -- and you'll actually compare apples to apples. Otherwise, you might as well be comparing the standardized test scores of girls who are high school seniors to the scores on the same tests for boys from kindergarten through 12th grade.
Oh I see. Well comparing really do not change the lack of long term relationshiips in homosexual relationships. Most couples who are in a relationship will get married. So the data is pertanent. That data also has in it the culture of homosexual relationships.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]

These should stand on their own without data from a heterosexual coupling.

[PixelPusher]

Oh I see. Well comparing really do not change the lack of long term relationshiips in homosexual relationships. Most couples who are in a relationship will get married. So the data is pertanent. That data also has in it the culture of homosexual relationships.


These should stand on their own without data from a heterosexual coupling.

link?

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh I see. Well comparing really do not change the lack of long term relationshiips in homosexual relationships. Most couples who are in a relationship will get married.

That would be shocking to me. I had at least 3 dating relationships that lasted more than a year but didn't result in marriage. Virtually all of my friends had at least one such relationship that did not result in marriage. I doubt that "most couples" in relationships actually end up getting married. If the number is 50%, I'd be surprised. That alone would cut your percentages in half.


So the data is pertanent. That data also has in it the culture of homosexual relationships.

These should stand on their own without data from a heterosexual coupling.

The couples remain together, but they include others sexually. I'm not sure how that validates a point that homosexual relationships don't last as long as heterosexual relationships.

In the first place, there's no data concerning the same activity among heterosexual relationships. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate others, the same result obtains in heterosexual relationships in which one partner or the other engages in infidelity. And, undoubtedly, that happens with some frequency.

More importantly, though, you're wholly ignoring the fact that the couples in the study that you cite are still in their relationships. If the question is whether homosexuals can maintain committed relationships for the same length of time that heterosexual married couples do -- again, an apples and oranges comparison -- the fact that they stay together would seem to cut against your argument; that they are sexually non-exclusive doesn't change that fact.

[Cry Havoc]

most couples who are in a relationship will get married.

o rly?

[spursncowboys]

I meant long term relationships.

[PixelPusher]

I meant long term relationships.

link?

[spursncowboys]

link?

your an idiot.

[PixelPusher]

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/assets_c/2008/12/wve-white-flag-260-thumb-260x358.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

I meant long term relationships.

There you go again -- you're relying on statistics that deal with all homosexual relationships (though I'll give you that you offered statistics - albeit those derived from an extremely limited study - that at least consider only long-term homosexual relationships; curiously, you rely on that study for a tangential point) and then comparing those with statistics about heterosexuals in long-term relationships.

I can assure you of this much: you'll always get the result that you want if you skew the comparison so heavily in your favor.

[Winehole23]

Is it legal for same sex couples to get a divorce in Texas, yet?

[Supergirl]

Why is it that most of their data is about gay men yet they keep using the phrase "gay men and lesbians"? Monogamy and length of relationships are very different in lesbian relationships versus gay men.

I'd like to see where they got their sample size of straight people and gay men. Because there's a lot more kinky, nonmonogamous straight people than this survey wants to pretend exist. And then there's all the straight people who cheat because they're too chickenshit to admit they don't want to try and take a vow of monogamy.

Also, where's the analysis of the impact of living in a relationship that is subject to homophobia and denial of basic human rights? Because yeah, that would cause some stress on anyone's relationship.

The methods are faulty, their analysis is pisspoor, and their ends are purely political, aimed at denying a minority civil rights. Great side to be on, guys.

[spursncowboys]

Why is it that most of their data is about gay men yet they keep using the phrase "gay men and lesbians"? Monogamy and length of relationships are very different in lesbian relationships versus gay men.

I'd like to see where they got their sample size of straight people and gay men. Because there's a lot more kinky, nonmonogamous straight people than this survey wants to pretend exist. And then there's all the straight people who cheat because they're too chickenshit to admit they don't want to try and take a vow of monogamy.

Also, where's the analysis of the impact of living in a relationship that is subject to homophobia and denial of basic human rights? Because yeah, that would cause some stress on anyone's relationship.

The methods are faulty, their analysis is pisspoor, and their ends are purely political, aimed at denying a minority civil rights. Great side to be on, guys.
Deciding to be in a homosexual relationship does not put you in a minority grouping.
It seems they collected all the information that was already out there. Maybe you should check their sources if you don't believe it. Then you can come here with some valid arguments. Instead of just discrediting the paper because you don't believe in the findings.

[BacktoBasics]

That Havoc character is a classic example. He basically says the dumbest shit and when you call him out on it, he goes "you don't know what you are talking about" and goes sips some wine and watches Olbermann.I distinctly remember someone else who's been called out in this thread.

The irony in you being critical of how others react to being called out.

You going to post those Tyson Foods pay check stubs today?

[mogrovejo]

I had no idea that so many people were in favour of participating - through the state - in the sanctioning of dad-daughter marriages, polygamist marriages and stuff like that.

[clambake]

I had no idea that so many people were in favour of participating - through the state - in the sanctioning of dad-daughter marriages, polygamist marriages and stuff like that.

how many are in favor?

[FromWayDowntown]

I had no idea that so many people were in favour of participating - through the state - in the sanctioning of dad-daughter marriages, polygamist marriages and stuff like that.

Because altering an arbitrary definition (prescribed by the State) necessarily entails abandonment of legitmately-defensible public policies that would preclude taking the redefinition to absurd lengths.

Methinks your slippery slope isn't particularly steep (or slippery).

[mogrovejo]

how many are in favor?

I didn't count them, but almost everybody in this thread that has defended that the state should sanction gay marriages.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't count them, but almost everybody in this thread that has defended that the state should sanction gay marriages.Right, and all the straw men you created support incest and polygamy.

[Blake]

I'm not sure I've ever seen B2B go nuclear like he has in this thread.

wow. :lol

[Blake]

To me what stood out the most was the level of self-proclaimed promiscuity shared by many of those surveyed...

it's a whole lot more fun to brag about how much of a stud you are when you are single.

not so much when you are married.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not sure I've ever seen B2B go nuclear like he has in this thread.

wow. :lolHe talked a lot of shit (attacked me and my kids) and I asked him to back it up and prove to all of us that I in fact make diddly and he is as successful as he makes himself out to be.

He refused.

I don't know if the guy is married or has kids or what but I doubt he makes more than I do "met" packing at Tyson Foods.

At least when I insult someone I'm willing to go the extra mile to back it up or at least be broad in my approach of attack...like race or something. To specifically target my work. My kids. My wife all of which he knows zero about is pretty weak. I flipped the table and offered him a real opportunity to embarrass me. Then the back peddling started.

He's doing me a favor...there not my kids...chill out its just the internet.

BORING.

Come on jack. Lets go get a cup of coffee.

[Jacob1983]

How many so-called homophobes are actually afraid of gay people? Homophobe is an overused and misused word. Just because you disagree with the gay lifestyle and/or believe that homosexuality is morally wrong because of your religious beliefs does not make you a homophobe or gay hater.

[BacktoBasics]

How many so-called homophobes are actually afraid of gay people? Homophobe is an overused and misused word. Just because you disagree with the gay lifestyle and/or believe that homosexuality is morally wrong because of your religious beliefs does not make you a homophobe or gay hater.It specifically makes you a gay hater if you continue to support gays being discriminated.

[Blake]

At least when I insult someone I'm willing to go the extra mile to back it up or at least be broad in my approach of attack...like race or something. To specifically target my work. My kids. My wife all of which he knows zero about is pretty weak. I flipped the table and offered him a real opportunity to embarrass me. Then the back peddling started.

chill out its just the internet.


:lol entertaining

[rjv]

He talked a lot of shit (attacked me and my kids) and I asked him to back it up and prove to all of us that I in fact make diddly and he is as successful as he makes himself out to be.

He refused.

I don't know if the guy is married or has kids or what but I doubt he makes more than I do "met" packing at Tyson Foods.

At least when I insult someone I'm willing to go the extra mile to back it up or at least be broad in my approach of attack...like race or something. To specifically target my work. My kids. My wife all of which he knows zero about is pretty weak. I flipped the table and offered him a real opportunity to embarrass me. Then the back peddling started.

He's doing me a favor...there not my kids...chill out its just the internet.

BORING.

Come on jack. Lets go get a cup of coffee.

just let it slide. who the hell cares what he says or posts? it's cyberspace not real life. no sense in stressing over posts that have no real content. i mean what i really read was nothing more than blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and nothing more.

[Blake]

How many so-called homophobes are actually afraid of gay people? Homophobe is an overused and misused word. Just because you disagree with the gay lifestyle and/or believe that homosexuality is morally wrong because of your religious beliefs does not make you a homophobe or gay hater.

are you afraid that the gays will ruin our society?

[mogrovejo]

Because altering an arbitrary definition (prescribed by the State) necessarily entails abandonment of legitmately-defensible public policies that would preclude taking the redefinition to absurd lengths.

Methinks your slippery slope isn't particularly steep (or slippery).

Sorry, what are your arguments to defend the state-sanctioning of gay marriages? I thought it was because consenting adults should be allowed to marry and that the reproductive/family issue is irrelevant to the subject.

[ploto]

It's ridiculous to assume that Jesus hated the adultress that was brought before him, about as ridiculous as suggesting that he condoned the adulterous act itself. In fact, when expounding on the topic of adultery - his view was considered far more extreme (lustful thoughts were considered adultery in his eyes; not just the act itself).

If you follow the pattern carefully you will see that when it came to "theoretical" sinning, Jesus was very firm in his proclamations, but when it came to dealing with individual sinners, He was compassionate and forgiving.

[mogrovejo]

If you follow the pattern carefully you will see that when it came to "theoretical" sinning, Jesus was very firm in his proclamations, but when it came to dealing with individual sinners, He was compassionate and forgiving.

That's what he's saying: hate the sin, not the sinner.

[ploto]

While I have personal beliefs about sin, I also do not believe the state should enforce them. I find greed sinful and think it is more harmful to our society than homosexual relationships are.

I also can not stand studies that are biased, insincere, and statistically meaningless- like this one is.

[mogrovejo]

While I have personal beliefs about sin, I also do not believe the state should enforce them. I find greed sinful and think it is more harmful to our society than homosexual relationships are.

Neither does he, it seems to me. I haven't read anybody here saying that we should turn "sins" into crimes.


I also can not stand studies that are biased, insincere, and statistically meaningless- like this one is.

Maybe it is. As you do nothing besides name-calling, that remains to be proved.

[BacktoBasics]

Neither does he, it seems to me. I haven't read anybody here saying that we should turn "sins" into crimes.



Maybe it is. As you do nothing besides name-calling, that remains to be proved.I didn't see any name calling in his last few posts.

[Phenomanul]

While I have personal beliefs about sin, I also do not believe the state should enforce them. I find greed sinful and think it is more harmful to our society than homosexual relationships are.

I also can not stand studies that are biased, insincere, and statistically meaningless - like this one is.

Most statistical surveys are meant to be representative of the entire pool since it would be all but impossible to survey every single human being on the face of the planet or to assume that everyone is always honest when surveyed.

What I find amusing is that one side will always discredit a survey if they don't agree with its implications. Yet how many times have they posted random surveys of their own to legitimize their views?

They can't have it both ways.

The same goes for wanting to legitimize their views via the constitutional framework of our laws, yet throwing a fuss if and when Christians try to do the same. As I said earlier, such is the core compromise of a democratic system. Last I checked, 'in-the-closet' or 'out', homosexuals are not being denied the right to vote.

[ChumpDumper]

These surveys and polls would be perfectly valid if they measured anything close to being comparable.

They don't.

The report comes to the ridiculous conclusion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because gays that aren't allowed to marry don't have good marriages like married hetero couples who did not divorce.

It's indefensible. That is apparent since no one here has even tried.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good God...this thread is full of win!

[TeyshaBlue]

These surveys and polls would be perfectly valid if they measured anything close to being comparable.

They don't.

The report comes to the ridiculous conclusion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because gays that aren't allowed to marry don't have good marriages like married hetero couples who did not divorce.

It's indefensible. That is apparent since no one here has even tried.

^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^

[BacktoBasics]

Most statistical surveys are meant to be representative of the entire pool since it would be all but impossible to survey every single human being on the face of the planet or to assume that everyone is always honest when surveyed.

What I find amusing is that one side will always discredit a survey if they don't agree with its implications. Yet how many times have they posted random surveys of their own to legitimize their views?

They can't have it both ways.

The same goes for wanting to legitimize their views via the constitutional framework of our laws, yet throwing a fuss if and when Christians try to do the same. As I said earlier, such is the core compromise of a democratic system. Last I checked, 'in-the-closet' or 'out', homosexuals are not being denied the right to vote.No doubt you're correct in stating that its impossible to survey everyone. A pool is fine. The stats themselves aren't even being questioned. Its the fact that Variable A and Variable B aren't relevant to each other that is so disturbing. I can't compare the distinct variations of the hue's in the color blue by comparing one shade of blue to the color black. Then conclude that the blue is much much stronger in blue then the black. Its pointless. Its not a legitimately comparable situation. Its just a bunch of numbers (correct or not) composed in a way that discredits gay relationships. Completely ignoring how irrelevant that they are to each other.

Lets have a luxury car quality poll conducted. Well use a Mercedes and Benz. Then compare that to a Taurus and then completely rip the Taurus for being a POS automobile.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sorry, what are your arguments to defend the state-sanctioning of gay marriages? I thought it was because consenting adults should be allowed to marry and that the reproductive/family issue is irrelevant to the subject.

No. Those are my responses to the arguments set forward against same-sex marriage.

[Phenomanul]

These surveys and polls would be perfectly valid if they measured anything close to being comparable.

They don't.

The report comes to the ridiculous conclusion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because gays that aren't allowed to marry don't have good marriages like married hetero couples who did not divorce.

It's indefensible. That is apparent since no one here has even tried.

Some of the surveyed homosexual pool was gathered from Sweden and the Netherlands where it is both legally permissible to marry and raise children...

Unless that particular subset of data were forcefully skewed by blatant removal of data not convenient to the writer's agenda... then the data from that subset should be valid... and it doesn't bode well for the arguments some of you all have made against the premise of the article as a whole. Like it or not.... it seems to paint the same picture as the incompatible* data set.

[Phenomanul]

No doubt you're correct in stating that its impossible to survey everyone. A pool is fine. The stats themselves aren't even being questioned. Its the fact that Variable A and Variable B aren't relevant to each other that is so disturbing. I can't compare the distinct variations of the hue's in the color blue by comparing one shade of blue to the color black. Then conclude that the blue is much much stronger in blue then the black. Its pointless. Its not a legitimately comparable situation. Its just a bunch of numbers (correct or not) composed in a way that discredits gay relationships. Completely ignoring how irrelevant that they are to each other.

Lets have a luxury car quality poll conducted. Well use a Mercedes and Benz. Then compare that to a Taurus and then completely rip the Taurus for being a POS automobile.

I think we've come to agree on this point (from my first post in this thread), but that's not my point of contention. The double-standard is.

[ChumpDumper]

Some of the surveyed homosexual pool was gathered from Sweden and the Netherlands where it is both legally permissible to marry and raise children...

Unless that particular subset of data were forcefully skewed by blatant removal of data not convenient to the writer's agenda... then the data from that subset should be valid... and it doesn't bode well for the arguments some of you all have made against the premise of the article as a whole. Like it or not.... it seems to paint the same picture as the incompatible* data set.The only argument I found involving those statistics is that they think the participation of homosexual couples in marriage when it is legal is low -- which is untrue for Vermont considering just how new it is.

That is no argument against making it legal, it is in fact an argument that it would be no big deal.

The premise of the article is a pile of shit. Anyone trying to justify its conclusions using the same data is simply doing the same thing.

[mogrovejo]

No. Those are my responses to the arguments set forward against same-sex marriage.

And what are your arguments against father/daughter marriages?

[ploto]

As you do nothing besides name-calling, that remains to be proved.

Whom did I call what name??

[spursncowboys]

Whom did I call what name??

Wouldn't it be 'to whom'?

[mogrovejo]

Whom did I call what name??

You accused the OP authors of producing a "biased, insincere, etc." study.

[Winehole23]

You accused the OP authors of producing a "biased, insincere, etc." study.When others accuse, it is aprioristic and baseless; when you do it, it is accurate and correct. Nice.

Plus which, again, the delicious spectacle of a serial exaggerator and well poisoner conceiving to protect the honor and reputation of a certain well-known media whoredom of the right, inspires me with great laughter.

That's another good one, mogro. :tu

[clambake]

people that inflate their own importance are easily offended.

[ChumpDumper]

You accused the OP authors of producing a "biased, insincere, etc." study.Can you think of anything you have done today that resembles that action?

[mogrovejo]

When others accuse, it is aprioristic and baseless; when you do it, it is accurate and correct. Nice.

Plus which, again, the delicious spectacle of a serial exaggerator and well poisoner conceiving to protect the honor and reputation of a certain well-known media whoredom of the right, inspires me with great laughter.

That's another good one, mogro. :tu

I can't keep answering to your ad hominem attacks, ForumCop.

[ChumpDumper]

Does the phrase "name-calling" mean something different in Portuguese?

[PublicOption]

homsexual assholes are way bigger than straights, thus they cannot hold in their shit as well.

[jack sommerset]

I don't get why the gays want to get married. Mostly, I think they just want to piss off the religious freaks. They can commune together. They can set up partnerships, joint accounts and powers of attorney. Our country does not interfere with any of this. Homosexuals can setup any legal provision they want. Why do they want society to say it's ok to be married? Will that make them feel better? Will that make them feel accepted?

I think it's gross and without question not natural. Most of all I think it is funny. Two dudes wanting to do what a man and women have been doing for thousands of years. Gays need to be confident with their perverted life style and stop trying to get everyone around them to bend over backwards (hmmm) to make them feel it's okay to be perverted.

Figure out a fag ceremony just for you guys. If a man and women want to get hitched like you guys, tell them "hell no" Make this happen.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't get why the gays want to get married. Mostly, I think they just want to piss off the religious freaks. They can commune together. They can set up partnerships, joint accounts and powers of attorney. Our country does not interfere with any of this. Homosexuals can setup any legal provision they want. Why do they want society to say it's ok to be married? Will that make them feel better? Will that make them feel accepted? No, they can't set up any legal provision they want.

Why do you want to keep them from getting married?

[Winehole23]

I can't keep answering to your ad hominem attacks, ForumCop.The Joe Biden thing really hurt, huh?

[jack sommerset]

No, they can't set up any legal provision they want.

Why do you want to keep them from getting married?

I already told you many, many, many times I don't care if faggots get married. I'll vote "no" whenever I get the chance (dudes on dudes is gross) but I really don't care. Just giving my opinion.....

What do you mean they can't set up any legal provisions they want

[mogrovejo]

The Joe Biden thing really hurt, huh?

What Joe Biden thing? I probably missed that one (and I'm serious, I can't recall any Joe Biden thing).

[ChumpDumper]

I already told you many, many, many times I don't care if faggots get married. I'll vote "no" whenever I get the chance (dudes on dudes is gross) but I really don't care. Just giving my opinion.....So you don't care, but you will vote no whenever you get the chance because it reminds you how gross man-on-man sex is.

Yeah, you really don't care. :lol


What do you mean they can't set up any legal provisions they wantI mean they can't set up any legal provisions they want. Some they can, some they cannot.

[Winehole23]

What Joe Biden thing? I probably missed that one (and I'm serious, I can't recall any Joe Biden thing).I know it really hurts.

[jack sommerset]

So you don't care, but you will vote no whenever you get the chance because it reminds you how gross man-on-man sex is.

Yeah, you really don't care. :lol

Bingo....



I mean they can't set up any legal provisions they want. Some they can, some they cannot.

Why not?

[ChumpDumper]

Bingo....Exactly.



Why not?Because several legal provisions are reserved for married couples.

[jack sommerset]

Exactly.

Yup


Because several legal provisions are reserved for married couples.

Like what?

[ChumpDumper]

YupIndeed.



Like what?A quick google gets a partial list:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

As I said, some of these can be arranged legally, but what is the argument against giving gay couples those rights automatically if they are married like heterosexuals?

[exstatic]

Why is it that most of their data is about gay men yet they keep using the phrase "gay men and lesbians"? Monogamy and length of relationships are very different in lesbian relationships versus gay men.

A dyke I once knew tried to explain this with a joke.

What do two Lesbians do on the second date?
Shop for furniture.

What do two gay men do on the second date?
What second date?

It's a gross oversimplification, but it shows that generally, Lesbians are monogamous, yet while snc's biased article reference gays and lesbians, it appears to use only gay data, and not the more strawman destructive lesbian data.

[Fabbs]

· relationship duration

[SIZE="3"]RELATIONSHIP DURATION

Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
These two are going on their 5th year.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-4.jpg

[Fabbs]

· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
Then again, they don't seem to be monogamous.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bonpop.jpg
Could Pop, Finley and Bonner move to Utah and have a polygamous marriage? Would statistics show this polygamous marriage would have a better chance of longer duration?

[exstatic]

These two are going on their 5th year.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/666-4.jpg

WIN :lmao

[ploto]

Wouldn't it be 'to whom'?

Indirect object.

[ChumpDumper]

Indirect object.Yeah, it's not like "I called to you a dumbass" unless of course there was a comma after the a.

[Phenomanul]

Indeed.


A quick google gets a partial list:

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

As I said, some of these can be arranged legally, but what is the argument against giving gay couples those rights automatically if they are married like heterosexuals?

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'entitlements' and provisions are denied to homosexuals in those two countries...???

[exstatic]

You accused the OP authors of producing a "biased, insincere, etc." study.

:lmao That's not calling someone a name, it's critiquing their work.

[exstatic]

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'entitlements' and provisions are denied to homosexuals in those two countries...???

Fail. Reading comprehension fault. Nowhere in that block fo text does it say that those are rights of heterosexual couples. They are rights of married couples.

I'll give you one example of rights on that list that are different for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and married couples. If one partner were to go into the hospital, the other partner doesn't have visitation rights. With an unmarried person, their immediate family controls access to the patient, not the partner.

[ploto]

I have resisted for days posting this in this thread, but after not much sleep and feeling sick, my resistance is weak. Here it is:

o-id4GKsaQk

[Phenomanul]

Fail. Reading comprehension fault. Nowhere in that block fo text does it say that those are rights of heterosexual couples. They are rights of married couples.

I'll give you one example of rights on that list that are different for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and married couples. If one partner were to go into the hospital, the other partner doesn't have visitation rights. With an unmarried person, their immediate family controls access to the patient, not the partner.

:rollin that is such a red herring... particularly in the context of the question I asked. Does the question bother you so much? I mean, you felt inclined to prematurely throw down the 'fail' card... Dude, I know you rarely agree with me on anything (except maybe our devotion to the Spurs), but that accusation was weak.

I'm asking whether or not there are provisions made available to heterosexual (married :rolleyes) couples in Sweden... and Holland... that are not extended to the homosexual community in those same countries. Constraints that would otherwise keep homosexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of homosexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations. The article doesn't expound on that particular facet of the argument. I'm simply trying to show that the data subset from those two countries could be statistically relevant and valid, despite the incessant (and convenient) ploy to toss it all away...

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm coming into this late and have admittedly not read many of the intervening pages between this and the OP (thus potentially reiterating a by-now-tired point) , but even allowing that there is any truth to these statistics... what does it matter? Should demographics with high statistical failure rates in marriage be disallowed from marriage?

[Phenomanul]

I'm coming into this late and have admittedly not read many of the intervening pages between this and the OP (thus potentially reiterating a by-now-tired point) , but even allowing that there is any truth to these statistics... what does it matter? Should demographics with high statistical failure rates in marriage be disallowed from marriage?

I can't speak for others... but personally I'm not trying to make the argument that the data shows why we shouldn't let homosexuals marry (or be entitled to any of the other provisions extended to heterosexual marriages). I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause.

Furthermore, I explained (for the umpteenth time) that Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals.

Lastly, I defended my right as a citizen to influence the laws of the land with my vote. Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out. Specifically, I pointed to the fact that homosexuals are not denied the right to vote - a poignant observation considering most voting is annonymous (i.e. the process doesn't care if someone has come-out-of-the-closet or not...) their vote should represent and reflect who they are...

[admiralsnackbar]

I can't speak for others... but personally I'm not trying to make the argument that the data shows why we shouldn't let homosexuals marry (or be entitled to any of the other provisions extended to heterosexual marriages). I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their argument.

Furthermore I explained (for the umpteenth time) that Christianity doesn't hate homosexuals.

Lastly I defended my right as a citizen to influence the laws of the land with my vote. Everybody's vote counts. Whatever wins out, wins out. Specifically, I pointed to the fact that homosexuals are not denied the right to vote - a poignant observation considering most voting is annonymous (i.e. it doesn't care if someone has come out of the closet or not...) their vote should represent what they want.

Coming after your last post, I can understand that you may believe my own last post was a criticism of your own -- just wanted to formally say this is not the case.

All your points are well-taken, I was only expressing a difficulty in seeing 18 year-old heterosexuals choosing to marry having any higher success-rate in the long-term than whatever sample group is being used to stand in for homosexual marriages in the OP's study.

If the data were just out there as a factual artifact, I wouldn't care all that much, but given that the clear subtext in light of recent board discussions is to justify excluding homosexuals from marriage, I think it's worthwhile to ask why certain demos of the heterosexual population should be above the same criteria, and further, whether the state has the right to decide whether it should grant marriage only to those whose probability for success falls within X thresholds.

[BacktoBasics]

:rollin that is such a red herring... particularly in the context of the question I asked. Does the question bother you so much? I mean, you felt inclined to prematurely throw down the 'fail' card... Dude, I know you rarely agree with me on anything (except maybe our devotion to the Spurs), but that accusation was weak.

I'm asking whether or not there are provisions made available to heterosexual (married :rolleyes) couples in Sweden... and Holland... that are not extended to the homosexual community in those same countries. Constraints that would otherwise keep homosexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of homosexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations. The article doesn't expound on that particular facet of the argument. I'm simply trying to show that the data subset from those two countries could be statistically relevant and valid, despite the incessant (and convenient) ploy to toss it all away...

I see what you're saying but in a case like Sweden or Holland the battle has changed from wanting equal rights to society accepting them and those equal rights. Its too soon to use statistics from "legal" places for comparison to long standing traditional marriage. Some couples, although legally accepted, still remain in the closet due to existing bigotry. They still fight a massive up hill battle. There's still discrimination. Still fear. Run those some stats 15 years from now. They'll be hugely different. This is specifically why its irrelevant. You can't get an accurate assessment because its way too soon and the discrimination has only begun to subside...if much at all.

I know how you guys hate when I do this but not every black man exercised their full rights when they were granted freedom. It took time for all of society to accept not just them but their rights.

[BacktoBasics]

If the data were just out there as a factual artifact, I wouldn't care all that much, but given that the clear subtext in light of recent board discussions is to justify excluding homosexuals from marriage, I think it's worthwhile to ask why certain demos of the heterosexual population should be above the same criteria, and further, whether the state has the right to decide whether it should grant marriage only to those whose probability for success falls within X thresholds.They're above that criteria for now. Because they're still discriminated against and even where legal there are still life altering ramifications for exercising their newly acquired rights.

Obtaining equal rights is just the first step in acceptance. It doesn't automatically change things over night. Only time can help at that point.

[Phenomanul]

I see what you're saying but in a case like Sweden or Holland the battle has changed from wanting equal rights to society accepting them and those equal rights. Its too soon to use statistics from "legal" places for comparison to long standing traditional marriage. Some couples, although legally accepted, still remain in the closet due to existing bigotry. They still fight a massive up hill battle. There's still discrimination. Still fear. Run those some stats 15 years from now. They'll be hugely different. This is specifically why its irrelevant. You can't get an accurate assessment because its way too soon and the discrimination has only begun to subside...if much at all.

I know how you guys hate when I do this but not every black man exercised their full rights when they were granted freedom. It took time for all of society to accept not just them but their rights.

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...?

While what you said may have some merit, that legislation in Sweden was passed over two decades ago..! The homosexual community has been granted the same rights... I've yet to read articles that prevalently show that 'straight' people in those countries are abusive of their homosexual counterparts... any massive beatdowns? slayings? to substantiate that fear...?

No... this last attempt is just another in a long string of arguments to help justify your cause. As I explained to Duff earlier, it is far more convenient for you to assume that Christians actually hate homosexuals because that makes it easier to justify your rejection of our beliefs. But if you must know... the actions of a few zealots don't define our doctrine.

[Blake]

I'm simply saying that some of the more relevant data doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause.



I have yet to see any relevant data that "doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause."

If anything, the data from the Netherlands paints a pretty favorable picture for their cause.

[Blake]

: Constraints that would otherwise keep homosexual couples from wanting to enter a marriage agreement in the first place - any factor which would help explain the dismal percentages of homosexual marriages, despite the lack of legal hindrance in those nations....

what dismal percentages are you referring to?

[BacktoBasics]

Now you want to move the 'goal posts' simply because of speculation...?

While what you said may have some merit, that legislation in Sweden was passed over two decades ago..! The homosexual community has been granted the same rights... I've yet to read articles that prevalently show that 'straight' people in those countries are abusive of their homosexual counterparts... any massive beatdowns? slayings? to substantiate that fear...?

No... this last attempt is just another in a long string of arguments to help justify your cause. As I explained to Duff earlier, it is far more convenient for you to assume that Christians actually hate homosexuals because that makes it easier to justify your rejection of our beliefs. But if you must know... the actions of a few zealots don't define our doctrine.Hate crimes are still alive and well in areas where gay unions are legal. Its still a large issue.

Do I need to "google" examples of hate crimes and stats in say Sweden to back this up or can we agree that crimes against gays is still prevalent in most if not all areas of the globe.

I'm willing to google hate crimes in Sweden if I need to.

I want to move the goal posts because I don't believe its fair to compare a group of people that represent traditional marriage in a world that has not just granted them free will to do as they please but is also the norm for acceptance. While the other group of people are targets for discrimination and bigotry who haven't fully been granted the same free will.

Legal or not gay unions are still the target of discrimination.

[Phenomanul]

I have yet to see any relevant data that "doesn't paint a favorable picture for their cause."

If anything, the data from the Netherlands paints a pretty favorable picture for their cause.

How so? Dismal percentage of marriages amongst those in the homosexual pool? I guess it shows they really wanted to get married... right? I mean they fought really hard to obtain that right, only to ignore it after it was granted? Yeah, favorable argument indeed.

[Phenomanul]

what dismal percentages are you referring to?

Read the article...

[Blake]

If available to heterosexual couples in Sweden and the Netherlands, which of these 'entitlements' and provisions are denied to homosexuals in those two countries...???

you mean outside of marriage?

homosexual couple in the Netherlands now can adopt kids like heterosexual couples.

there's more, but one 'entitlement' is enough.

[Blake]

Read the article...

I did.

Which dismal percentages in the article are you specifically referring to.

[Blake]

How so? Dismal percentage of marriages amongst those in the homosexual pool? I guess it shows they really wanted to get married... right? I mean they fought really hard to obtain that right, only to ignore it after it was granted? Yeah, favorable argument indeed.

The homosexual divorce rate in the Netherlands is the same 1% per year as the hetersexual divorce rate.

What % of the population in the Netherlands do you think are gay and haven't gotten married yet?

[BacktoBasics]

How so? Dismal percentage of marriages amongst those in the homosexual pool? I guess it shows they really wanted to get married... right? I mean they fought really hard to obtain that right, only to ignore it after it was granted? Yeah, favorable argument indeed.As far as diversity and society as a whole are concerned how comparable is the Netherlands to the US? There population is probably less than 20 million.

I know just here in the states the South is very much different than the North. But surely its much more comparable in likeness than say the US and the Netherlands.

[Phenomanul]

Hate crimes are still alive and well in areas where gay unions are legal. Its still a large issue.

Do I need to "google" examples of hate crimes and stats in say Sweden to back this up or can we agree that crimes against gays is still prevalent in most if not all areas of the globe.

I'm willing to google hate crimes in Sweden if I need to.

I want to move the goal posts because I don't believe its fair to compare a group of people that represent traditional marriage in a world that has not just granted them free will to do as they please but is also the norm for acceptance. While the other group of people are targets for discrimination and bigotry who haven't fully been granted the same free will.

Legal or not gay unions are still the target of discrimination.

So what is it you want... centuries of data? Worldwide acceptance of their lifestyles by force? Isn't that discrimination against my free thought?? The very same concept you seem to lobby against? I'm not hurting homosexuals... I don't interfere with their lifestyle... let them be entitled to the full benefits of marriage, if they so desire to have them; I'm not against that either.

Mainly my two biggest concerns... is 1) the effect of raising children in a homosexual environment (not that all heterosexual environments are perfect - far from it, actually). 2) the push for biblical texts to be labeled as 'hate' speech... :rolleyes

Anyways, spot Google samples on Swedish gay hate crimes, would be less statistically relevant than the number of those poled for this survey. Not to mention that for every such article, there are articles of church burnings, Christian martyrs, and articles which snidely criticize church doctrine and or beliefs. You realize that Christians have been largely weeded out of Swedish society? Or in a broader context, that they are killed in many places throughout the earth....

[Phenomanul]

In 1995 Sweden passed the Registered Partnership Act which created civil unions for homosexual couples. In 2003 that law was amended to give registered homosexual couples the same right to adopt or have legal custody of children as married couples. The percentage of homosexual or lesbians in Sweden that enter into civil unions may be estimated as follows:

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden: Extrapolating from the Demography estimates in the U.S., a similar percentage of the homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden would be approximately 140,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 3,531,554, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 3,679,317).[25]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions: The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.[26] This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples.

The Netherlands

A landmark law allowing same-sex "marriage" was instituted in the Netherlands on March 31, 2001, with a highly publicized communal ceremony that included two lesbian "brides" and six homosexual "grooms." The Netherlands instituted a "registered partnership" law in 1998 that accorded legal status to homosexual relationships similar to that of marriage. The new law, which explicitly recognizes same-sex matrimony, is restricted to Dutch nationals. However, as the following analysis shows, the percentage of homosexuals and lesbians that have entered into marriage-like civil unions is very low.

Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of the Netherlands: Extrapolating from demographic figures for homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S., a similar percentage for the Netherlands would be 242,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 6,161,662, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 6,311,338).[27]
Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions: A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships. The Office of Legislative Research released a report in October 2002 stating: "The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs reports that 3,383 of the 121,776 marriages licensed between April 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, involved people of the same sex."[28]

Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as "married."

http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_5.gif

Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, 2; Black, "Demographics," 141; U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1; Bayles, "Vermont's Gay Civil Unions," 1; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4; Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't,'" 1; "ORL Backgrounder," 1.
The much lower rates of homosexual and lesbian civil "marriages" in Sweden and the Netherlands must be viewed in the light of much lower marriage rates in both of those countries, a trend that the introduction of gay "marriage" in the 1990s has not reversed. Thus, as writer Stanley Kurtz argues, the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals and lesbians "has further undermined the institution" of marriage: "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."[29]


And disregard the graph... At this point it's statistically incompatible to relate it to the U.S. (a point which for the 20th time, I'm not arguing in favor of)...

[Al Koholik]

Who gives a shit what the queers do? Let those faggots poke each other in the ass if they want.
I was married once. I loved her with everything I had. I gave her every fuggin thing. Why did that bitch have to leave me? BECAUSE SHE'S A WHORE THAT'S WHY! No, no she isn't. He gave her what I couldn't, time and attention. THAT UNGRATEFUL CUNT! I WORKED ALL THOSE HOURS FOR HER! No, no that's not true. I wanted that new car. I... I loved that car. I'd still have it if it wasn't for THAT BITCH!! WHERE'S MY CAR BITCH?! DOES THAT ASSHOLE DRIVE IT?!
DOES HE DRIVE MY CAR?!!


Yeah let the queers get married. Fuggin assholes

[Phenomanul]

Who gives a shit what the queers do? Let those faggots poke each other in the ass if they want.
I was married once. I loved her with everything I had. I gave her every fuggin thing. Why did that bitch have to leave me? BECAUSE SHE'S A WHORE THAT'S WHY! No, no she isn't. He gave her what I couldn't, time and attention. THAT UNGRATEFUL CUNT! I WORKED ALL THOSE HOURS FOR HER! No, no that's not true. I wanted that new car. I... I loved that car. I'd still have it if it wasn't for THAT BITCH!! WHERE'S MY CAR BITCH?! DOES THAT ASSHOLE DRIVE IT?!
DOES HE DRIVE MY CAR?!!


Yeah let the queers get married. Fuggin assholes

Ok... that anecdote was intense. :lol

[BacktoBasics]

Opinion.

I think the low % of gays legally taking advantage of their rights to marriage is directly attributed to the fact that they're still discriminated against. They're are still far reaching implications for being "out there" for everyone to see.

This is why I said that this thread is pointless. Its not comparable on any level because its just a step in the big picture of freedom and equal rights. Not a finished product to be reasonably compared.

[jack sommerset]

As I said, some of these can be arranged legally, but what is the argument against giving gay couples those rights automatically if they are married like heterosexuals?

So they can get the same provision legally as a married couple. Alright.... Back to the begining.

I don't see why they want to get married when they can get the the same provisions legally. Come up with thier own ceremony. Then work on the feds to give them the exact samething a married couple gets when they get hitched so they don't have to fill out paper work to get what a straight couple gets.

The whole debate on religion is a joke. They don't want them to be married. That cult bible says they don't like the fags. They shouldn't want to be married by any church.


I am still laughing Cry Havoc said he was Christian. :lol I am starting to like that guy!

[Phenomanul]

Opinion.

I think the low % of gays legally taking advantage of their rights to marriage is directly attributed to the fact that they're still discriminated against. They're are still far reaching implications for being "out there" for everyone to see.

This is why I said that this thread is pointless. Its not comparable on any level because its just a step in the big picture of freedom and equal rights. Not a finished product to be reasonably compared.

That may have a semblance of truth... but, both Sweden and Holland voted to have these movements pass through their legislative process... both nations have democratic governments. If the motions passed through legislation, and became law (without much fuss or hubris) wouldn't that at least suggest that the anti-gay sentiment in those very nations was lower than you're painting it to be?

The fact is, homosexuals in those nations are allowed to get married... but still aren't doing so at a noticeable clip. As for why that is, that reason would be subject to speculation, but it may be rooted in the very nature of homosexual relationships themselves...

You all keep insisting that the data is irrelevant because it poses an inconvenient 'truth'... I would agree that the implications of those peculiar dynamics cannot be extrapolated to define the cultural trends in our nation directly... indirectly though, the statistics I highlighted remain highly relevant.

[admiralsnackbar]

That may have a semblance of truth... but, both Sweden and Holland voted to have these movements pass through their legislative process... both nations have democratic governments. If the motions passed through legislation, and became law (without much fuss or hubris) wouldn't that at least suggest that the anti-gay sentiment in those very nations was lower than you're painting it to be?

The fact is, homosexuals in those nations are allowed to get married... but still aren't doing so at a noticeable clip. As for why that is, that reason would be subject to speculation, but it may be rooted in the very nature of homosexual relationships themselves...

You all keep insisting that the data is irrelevant because it poses an inconvenient 'truth'... I would agree that the implications of those peculiar dynamics cannot be extrapolated to define the cultural trends in our nation directly... indirectly though, the statistics I highlighted remain highly relevant.

I don't think it presents an inconvenient truth, just an irrelevant one. I have trouble believing that homosexual relationships can be generalized to consist of certain predispositions towards stability or instability any more than heterosexual ones can. Even allowing as much shouldn't make sense to legislators, only certain voters.

The final arbiter of whether two people successfully commit to one another is whether they stick by their agreement, not how likely actuarial tables suggest they may or may not be in achieving their goals.

[BacktoBasics]

If the motions passed through legislation, and became law (without much fuss or hubris) wouldn't that at least suggest that the anti-gay sentiment in those very nations was lower than you're painting it to be?

No. If that were the case we'd see more results here. I believe that there is a majority of people out there that don't have an issue with gay marriage but only a small portion of people with the power to do something about it.

Sincerely,

Legalizing Marijuana

[Phenomanul]

No. If that were the case we'd see more results here. I believe that there is a majority of people out there that don't have an issue with gay marriage but only a small portion of people with the power to do something about it.

Sincerely,

Legalizing Marijuana

There is widespread public acceptance for the legalization of marijuana???

Interesting...

[BacktoBasics]

There is widespread public acceptance for the legalization of marijuana???

Interesting...Not within those that push their agendas and carry out laws. I think there is widespread acceptance that marijuana is relatively harmless and should be legalized. Far more than people think. Things are just now beginning to be changed in big ways whereas 20 years ago it was almost unthinkable.

[Blake]

And disregard the graph... At this point it's statistically incompatible to relate it to the U.S. (a point which for the 20th time, I'm not arguing in favor of)...

I was just curious where in the article you were pointing at.

[BacktoBasics]

There is widespread public acceptance for the legalization of marijuana???

Interesting...I'll at least attempt to show some support for my statement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/Who-Supports-Marijuana-Legalization.aspx

Approximately 1/3 of men and women under the age of 49 as of 2005 support its legalization. No doubt that figure is higher now. No doubt there are people out there that support it but are afraid to say anything.

I consider a third to be widespread.

[Blake]

How so? Dismal percentage of marriages amongst those in the homosexual pool? I guess it shows they really wanted to get married... right? I mean they fought really hard to obtain that right, only to ignore it after it was granted? Yeah, favorable argument indeed.

I don't really see it as being an argument either way. Why would more gays showing up to get married make it a more favorable argument?

[Blake]

The fact is, homosexuals in those nations are allowed to get married... but still aren't doing so at a noticeable clip. As for why that is, that reason would be subject to speculation, but it may be rooted in the very nature of homosexual relationships themselves...

You all keep insisting that the data is irrelevant because it poses an inconvenient 'truth'... I would agree that the implications of those peculiar dynamics cannot be extrapolated to define the cultural trends in our nation directly... indirectly though, the statistics I highlighted remain highly relevant.

I agree with snackbar.......it's an irrelevant truth

even if a very small percent of homosexual marriages were to work, it still should be legal.

If divorce rates were to ever reach 70-80% for straight marriages, are you going to argue that marriage should be illegal altogether?

[Marcus Bryant]

Why must the sexual acts of individuals be the concern of the government? In what section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is sex mentioned at all? TJ seemed like a rather randy fellow himself, but even he didn't think it was that important.

Since when is it the purpose of the government to outlaw/discourage/whatever sin? There are many sins that are perfectly legal. Then there are sins such as banging a woman other than your wife, but somehow that should be without consequences. To the extent homosexuality represents a sin as sex outside of marriage, well, so does every other kind of sex. Shit, we can't even agree on what constitutes sin to begin with.

Before I forget, we have two groups of fundamentalist nuts known as political parties in these United States. One group focuses on the sins of individuals, the other on the sins of man. Neither wants to leave you alone. They actually represent two wings of the same progressive movement, over a century old now. Gone is the country in which at least a good portion of the population was free to do as they pleased so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to do as they pleased. Instead of extending that freedom to all, we end up with this dogshit to which most of you subscribe. Fuck you.

[Blake]

Mainly my two biggest concerns... is 1) the effect of raising children in a homosexual environment (not that all heterosexual environments are perfect - far from it, actually).

why is this a concern to you?

[Winehole23]

They actually represent two wings of the same progressive movement, over a century old now.It does look that way.


Gone is the country in which at least a good portion of the population was free to do as they pleased so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to do as they pleased. Instead of extending that freedom to all, we end up with this dogshit to which most of you subscribe. Fuck you.Succinct, with a lingering bitter finish.

[admiralsnackbar]

It does look that way.

Succinct, with a lingering bitter finish.

:lol Sort of a rhetorical Cynar, one might say.

[spursncowboys]

Why must the sexual acts of individuals be the concern of the government? In what section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is sex mentioned at all? TJ seemed like a rather randy fellow himself, but even he didn't think it was that important.

Since when is it the purpose of the government to outlaw/discourage/whatever sin? There are many sins that are perfectly legal. Then there are sins such as banging a woman other than your wife, but somehow that should be without consequences. To the extent homosexuality represents a sin as sex outside of marriage, well, so does every other kind of sex. Shit, we can't even agree on what constitutes sin to begin with.

Before I forget, we have two groups of fundamentalist nuts known as political parties in these United States. One group focuses on the sins of individuals, the other on the sins of man. Neither wants to leave you alone. They actually represent two wings of the same progressive movement, over a century old now. Gone is the country in which at least a good portion of the population was free to do as they pleased so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others to do as they pleased. Instead of extending that freedom to all, we end up with this dogshit to which most of you subscribe. Fuck you.I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of homosexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.

[spursncowboys]

why is this a concern to you?
why is that relevant?

[BacktoBasics]

I wonder if our founding fathers ever thought there would be an atheist ruling class or a movement of homosexuality normalization. I wonder would they have included more things. Interesting.
That is a great point.I've read in numerous places that our founding fathers wanted no part of religion in the Constitution.