FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

[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 cons utional 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', sexuals 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 sexual 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 sexual 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 sexual 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 . 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 dom of the right, inspires me with great laughter.

That's another good one, mogro.

[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 dom of the right, inspires me with great laughter.

That's another good one, mogro.

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 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. sexuals 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 ceremony just for you guys. If a man and women want to get hitched like you guys, tell them " 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. sexuals 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 gots 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 gots 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.

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

I 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.

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.