Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[John Dibble]

I thought it was about 80% various Christian denominations, 10% atheist/agnostic, 10% other religions.

[John Dibble]

It really irks me when people compare gay marriage to marrying children.  There's a big difference - one is between two consenting adults and the other is between at least one party that is not yet competent enough to give consent for such a decision.

And no, you can't marry your dog in a legal sense(though I'm sure you could get some wierdo church to do it) because your dog is not a citizen or a person - it is an animal. It does not pay taxes, and it is considered property. You can not marry property. A dog also has no way to really give consent, because it doesn't even understand the abstract concept of marriage.

If you would like to argue against gay marriage, keep it to gay marriage. When other types come up, argue against those differently, because they are different. There are different arguments against polygamy you could use if that came up, because polygamy is not the same as a two person marriage of any form.

[John Dibble]

Brambila -

Two things -

1. You completely ignored one of my points - CONSENT. Adults can give consent, children can not. Adults have the mental faculties to understand the seriousness of marriage and sex(though, sometimes even adults ignore these) and children do not. A child can not operate a vehicle, an adult can, why? Because an adult is developed, a child is not. NAMBLA will never get their way for this very reason - they can beg all they want but it won't happen.

2. Back up your statements with the research and studies you attained your information from. Link me to the studies that you have stated, so I can review them and, if necessary and possible, disprove or discredit them. For instance, you say homosexuality stems from "abuse, neglect, and parental imbalance". My uncle is gay, and yet his parents were normal, loving, and balanced, and both my aunt and my father are straight. If homosexuality, and even pedophilia, stem from such things, why then do some people with completely normal parents end up like that? Can you even prove that the majority of homosexuals were abused, neglected, and had imbalance parents? EDIT - Also, I do realize pedophilia is indeed a disorder, but my point is that if you claim its cause is linked to the cause of homosexuality then you need to prove it.

[John Dibble]

I addressed consent, John. Sex with minors is illegal, correct, but so was sodomy. Hence, you're simply begging the question by continuing this. Further, children are often more mentally stable than their parents.One of my friends basically had to raise his three siblings because his parents were alcoholics. At a young age (fifth grade), he was already providing for the family. He had a real sense of responsibility. This is a mere example of hundreds of cases where children are more mentally stable than parents. Similarly, the argument for homosexuals is that because they are suffering from a mental disorder, they cannot truly make the decision to have sexual intercourse or marry based on true love or anything for that matter. They are not mentally stable.

Firstly, I'd like two remind you that my best friend is has same-sex attractions (I don't like the words "gay" and "homosexual" too much), two of my good friends have the same disorder, my uncle is a homosexual (I can define him as such because he practices it), my aunts best friend is a homosexual, and I can list of several names of my peers who are homosexual (I live in San Francisco). Every single one of them has had some sort of parental imbalance, has been abused, neglected, or sexually molested. None of them had normal childhoods. I once went to an Alcoholics meeting (not AA), and surprisingly of the homosexuals there who were speaking, most of them had sexual molestation or parental imbalance as children. Courage, a Catholic group seeking to help people with same-sex attractions find these cases all the time.

The study took place in 2001, by Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is a prestigious orgnization and APA-approved. The study, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons", took a sample of 942 adults who were not clinically treated. They were both homosexual and heterosexual. Of this study, 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual owmen said that they were molested by homosexuals. In the same study, only 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women were molested by homosexuals. Interestingly, when asked who was molested, twice as many homosexuals said that they were molested than heterosexuals.

Here's a link to the study.

Besides the fact that you don't know how much your grandparents gave attention to your uncle, this doesn't happen to everyone. Sometimes, people get same-sex attractions for other reasons. My point is that most homosexuals have had these problems as children. It does not only spark homosexual attraction- it sparks homosexual addiction. Very few homosexuals have had partners for over five years, even married ones. In the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women , the authors reported that 43% of homosxual men had at least 500 partners, and 28% of these had over a thousand. I can't find this study online, but I'm sure you can find the book in the library. It's by AP Weinburg I believe.

Thank you for linking the study. Now, on to the debate:

1. First off, you connect mental stability with mental competence. While most mentally unstable people are mentally incompetent, mental stability doesn't mean mental cometence(I can be completely normal, but that doesn't necessarily mean I make good decisions, I could have bad judgement). Yes, there are cases where children rise above adversity, but I have to disagree, most children(especially younger children) are less mentally competent than their parents - if they were then they wouldn't need parents, now would they? They'd have the competence to raise themselves. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But your personal experience is not necessarily a reflection of the whole.

2. Once again, your friends and relatives, your personal experiences. Doesn't reflect the whole. When I used my uncle as an example, it was to provide an exception. And yes, I do have a good idea of how good my grandparents are. They produced three wonderful people. Also, I'd like to point out that my uncle is quite a successful individual(runs his own business, has lots of friends, ect.), he is a light alcoholic and sometimes makes bad personal decisions, but this is more from the fact that he is bi-polar(and now that he's on meds for that, he's much more stable).

3. The study looks sound, and I'll believe you that the APA approves of them. However, this shows correlation, not causation. Homosexual children may be more likely to put themselves in situations where they may be molested(an adult of the same sex may show excessive affection, so the child would more likely hang around than be wierded out, and the adult ends up being a pedophile and molesting them). Or, it could be something in the genetics of the parents, makes them more abusive or neglectful, and some of the bad genes get passed to the child, and since the parent is that way they abuse and neglect the child. I may be wrong on these, but as I said, correlation does not equal causation.

4. On the last study you mentioned, the one with the extremly high, ludicrous stats. Probably the result of bad study methods. I'd like to reference one Paul Cameron. The stats you referenced were likely based on his studies. The probelm with Mr. Cameron is is that he has no credibility - he's been kicked out of the APA, Nebraska Psychological Association, and American Sociological Association. He was kicked out not because of his views on homosexuality(very, VERY negative), but because his methods for compiling statistics were poor and he intentionally misrepresented the studies of others within those organizations. For instance, he used obituaries in gay community newspapers to determine the average lifespan of homosexuals, which didn't account for gays still in the closet, those who did not involve themselves in gay communities, those who's families didn't think to send obituaries to gay community newspapers or just didn't write an obituary, ect., in other words just a poor sampling. Just remember - not all studies are scientifically valid, so before you accept one as truth find out what research methods were used, was the sampling both random and consisting of a broad population(for instance, if you wanted to do a study on a certain race, it wouldn't be valid to only include subjects who live in the ghetto, or only subjects who live outside of it, you have to have a range of both that are representative of the actual ratio), and do other valid studies back it up.

On another note, I will admit that most scientifically valid studies do show that homosexuals are a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals(particularly during their teen years), but this could be due to them feeling outcast and using sex as a form of acceptance to feel loved. I'm no expert, so I can't be sure - just remember the all important thing about studies - correlation does not equal causation.

[John Dibble]

One more thing - just for those who'd like to see it, this is the APA's official stance on sexual orientation: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

[John Dibble]

One more thing - just for those who'd like to see it, this is the APA's official stance on sexual orientation: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

The APA is a wackyo liberal group

Yeah, whatever wackyo is

jk, I posted the link because they were mentioned, no other reason really

[John Dibble]

A. No, even if a child is mentally competent and stable, he/she is still a child. They do not yet have the life experience or maturity to make such a decision. Even if a child is capable of supporting a family with an alcoholic at the head, that's more for survival than anything else. I still maintain that a child at any age before 16 at the very least(which is the legal age to get married where I live, but need parental consent before 18). A child can also not enter into a contract under the law, which marriage, under the law, is.

B. I'd be interested in hearing where exactly you meet most of these people. That could have something to do with it. For instance, if you met most of them in therapy sessions of some sort then you would definitely run into more problem cases.

C. I didn't imply it was genetic, or if I did, it was not my intent. I agree with the APA that homosexuality results as a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors, and the balance between the two varies from person to person. Biological factors can include more than DNA, for instance a mother who drinks while pregnant is affecting the unborn child biologically, or even being exposed to hazardous chemicals after being born while still developing. Environmental factors include parents, family, friends, and other social factors. Also, I was definitely not implying children like to be molested, no such thing at all. What I was trying to say was that some might be predisposed to put themselves in positions that would end up in molestation, like some people are predisposed to take more risks than others. For instance, I might cut through an alley to save time getting where I want to go, but unintentionally put myself at risk for getting mugged, same deal with the kids - they want the added affection the person is giving them, but the affection turns into molestation. I don't imply that they want or like it, just there are unintended consequences for their predisposed wants. I could be wrong, I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be.

D. While I agree that the APA was wrong about the 10% statistic, I said Mr. Cameron was also kicked out for intentionally misrepresenting other studies by fellow APA members. I don't claim the APA is perfect. Also, 1978, an old study, but that doesn't make it invalid(I can't find the research methods atm, but the numbers seem ridiculously high to me). All organizations need to use proper study methods, which are emphasized much more today than they were back then(I'm in a psychology class right now, and proper research methods was the first topic right after the introduction).

E. Interesting theory. Is there proof to back this, or is just a theory? Seems to me there's lots of people who outcast homosexuals merely for being homosexuals, though I can see that among children there would be other reasons.

One other thing - the brain.  Neurolgy is how the brain works, Psychology, among other things, involves how the brain interacts with the mind(that is, our conciousness), my psychology book has about 3 chapters on nerves and the brain. Also, psychology does involve genetics - there's a nature vs. nurture debate among psycholgists, but most agree it is an interaction between the two that determines how a person ends up(for instance, you can be genetically predisposed to be a risk taker, and in that case it is majority biological).

[John Dibble]

Brambila,

I don't think we're getting anywhere, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue. I don't think the APA is 'run by homosexuals' as you put it, nor do I think homosexuality is a disorder(if it was, I'd consider it a minor one, it doesn't really impede on a person's ability to function too terribly much, like narcissitic personality disorder can do), and it's not the same as pedophilia(so even if they use the same arguments, they need to be treated as seperate cases). As for the NARTH theory, well, it could be right, could be wrong, but until it's proven one way or the other it's just a theory - it would most likely be a combination of that and multiple other social factors, not merely a search for masculinity.

I do think you are a bit more scientific about homosexuality than many of the opponents of gay marriage, who just simply say "being homosexual is a choice", since you view it as disorder(disorders not really being a choice, something influences you to have one). That has made this little debate interesting because you actually use some reasoning outside of the normal conservative box(there's a liberal box too ). Thanks for that. I'm always up for a good debate.

I also agree that alcoholism isn't genetic, per se. As I said, many things are a combination. One person may be predisposed more than another, but the other may have been abused or something and is an alcoholic for that reason. People develop disorders such as alcoholism for various reasons, attributing it to a single cause is foolish, few things happen in life for one reason.

[John Dibble]

platypeanArchcow,

I'm gonna tell you what I told Brambila - back it up. Please link us to something backing this statement up so we may judge it accordingly. I try not to accept anything(even if it does agree with my way of thinking) unless I have some valid proof of it's truth(in this way, I'm a common sense, classical liberal, as opposed to the kind that just calls itself liberal but isn't open minded nor tolerant[not racially, but in tolerating those who think differently]).

[John Dibble]

Would be nice, but don't go to too much trouble.

[John Dibble]

Even if your kids see homosexuals kissing or whatever, most would probably find it out of the ordinary, and they'd probably ask you about it(if you are a good parent, your kids trust information you give them more than anyone else). I'll grant you it's not a comfortable subject to explain to your kids, but there's lots of uncomfortable subjects they can ask about(like "where do babies come from?", or a question I asked my godfather when I was a kid "why do women bleed sometimes?"), but there are actually easy ways to answer them, usually dumbing them down a bit if the child is especially young. If you found homosexuality to be immoral a good explanation would probably be "What those people are doing is unnatural/immoral(whatever you'd prefer, give some basic reasons if you feel it necessary), and while I think they should stop it is not our business to make them, and it would be best that you do not follow their example." I would explain differently myself, since I don't think homosexuality is immoral and I don't think they have a choice in the matter or that homosexuality is destructive. Your kids will adopt a view on homosexuality one way or another - why not tell them yours before they get another(which could even be an extreme opposite or an extreme extension of yours)?

[John Dibble]

No, I didn't miss the point. I said you should explain your view so your kids know it the way you see it. Since you are the biggest influence in their lives they will likely end up having a view somewhat similar to yours. You should also explain that just because something is legal or illegal does not necessarily mean that it is right to do it or not do it, that we live in a society where not everyone agrees on everything and that sometimes laws get enacted that you do not necessarily agree with. There's quite a few laws I think are wrong, and I follow them, but perhaps for different reasons than they being law(for instance, alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, I don't abuse alcohol and I don't use marijuana because doing either is simply a bad idea, but I don't believe we should force people to not do marijuana, rather let them make their own good or bad choices).

[John Dibble]

Do any foreign countries have pro-gay marriage laws?

Sweden, Norway, and Denamrk all have Civil Unions.  And what do you know, in all instances, immediately after they changed the law, out-of-wedlock births shot up.

Actually, the out-of-wedlock births in those areas were increasing before gay marriage was instituted. I've said it befoe and I'll say it again - correlation does not equal causation. The more probable reason for the increase is due to two things:

1. Increased liberalism in those countries. You'll find the more conservative areas there have a more normal rate of in-wedlock births than the more liberal areas. Since conservatives also tend to place more emphasis on religion, that also factors into it. The increase liberalism also resulted in the allowing of gay marriage, so there was a correlation in the increase of out of wedlock births and the legalization of gay marriage, but the causation may have been more liberalism. That being said, I think it's good that the U.S. has a good balance of liberals and conservatives - too much of either can be dangerous, balance in all things and whatnot.

2. There are alternative forms of legal relationships that substitute for marriage, such as cohabitation and civil unions(in this case, it is for both heterosexuals and homosexuals), so when  out of wedlock statistics are counted they generally do not count children born in these legal relationships as born in wedlock. I'll also note that these types of relationships have a higher breakup rate than marriage in those countries do(perhaps because the terms 'cohabitation' and 'civil union' don't seem to carry as much weight as 'marriage' does, so people are more willing to get into them before they are really ready for a lifelong relationship), but the majority of people in these relationships who have a second child do tend to get married. These alternative relationships appeal to young liberals, since they seem less serious but still hold some weight, just not as much as marriage.

[John Dibble]

I think when they say they find no difference, it basically means they are well balanced, healthy individuals(no psychological problems, productive members of society, ect.), not that they might not have any cultural or ideological differences.

[John Dibble]

Brambila,

I know I said the debate was over, but I guess not - I call into question the validity of the Weinberg 1978 study.

1. The study is from 1978 - during the 1960's and 1970's, people were less aware of AIDS and other STDS, awareness today have likely driven both heterosexual and homosexual number of partners down. The numbers may not reflect today.

2. I have been looking for research methods on this study, and have found a few snipits(though not enough to raise a complete critique of the study). Both the homosexual sample and the control heterosexual sample were not truly random, and all were performed in in San Francisco alone(would not be representative of the true national homosexual population, as I believe you yourself said in referring to population percentage). The homosexual group was composed of volunteers collected by paid recruiters, and the heterosexual control group of 284 was collected by going door to door(hardly random, since it only represents whatever areas they went door to door).

3. I have seen the study referred to next to a population percentage saying that homosexuals were 10 to 20 percent of the population - which we both know is a big fallacy.

4. The study is in direct contridiction with the previous study you linked(the one concerning percentage molested or abused), though in this case I think the Weinberg study is definitely more accurate, so this one is calling into question the validity of the other study you linked, now that I've taken another look at it to compare the two studies. The Weignberg study says that 4.9% of the homosexuals reported "prepubertal sexual experience with a male adult involving physical contact" compared to 2.5% heterosexual males. The other study you linked reports 49.2 percent of homosexual men were molested, but it also reports 24.4 percent of heterosexual men were molested - a ludicrous percentage. The difference in both is about a 2 to 1 ratio, but obviously at least one study does not reflect the true population. Also the populations in this study were 124 homosexual men, 205 heterosexual men - for a study to be accurate the control and experimental groups should be of the same size.

So, if you continue to insist on using the Weinberg study to support your arguments, please prove it is a valid study.

[John Dibble]

1. Ok, thanks for the correction, my data was probably off due to the 'Weinberg' mistake. I'll look up 'Weinburg' later if I have time. I'm still bothered by one thing - how exactly do these people keep count of how many partners they have? Seriously - 500 to 1000 - wouldn't they stop counting at some point? Would it not be possible, even probable, that they overestimated the number of partners they had. It also seems unlikely, considering they likely do not move around the country much, that there are that many partners available to the average homosexual. This may mean that they have had the same partner many times, but these people being extra permiscuous, they likely do not remember their partners after one-night stands, so they have the same partner multiple times[I might be convinced to count each of these encounters as 'extra partners' for each one, but not completely because these repeat encounters would only occur with the really promiscuous ones, outing the more average homosexual male]. Just some food for thought about why those numbers may be higher than they actually are(200 partners, for instance, would be less questionable, and within the realm of possibility). Just some food for thought about why the nubmers might be so high. Also, most of the homosexuals I know aren't really permiscuous, how about the ones you know?(I know this isn't scientific, just comparing personal experiences)

2. Since it wasn't the Weinburg study, the info wasn't relevant, so the Weinberg study is likely innacurate, but I have yet to confirm the Weinburg study either way.

3. nothing to be said

4. Actually, yes the study was only about molestation - not once in the study you linked was the word 'abuse' used. The title is "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons", if you meant to link a different study then link it. I refuse to believe that 25% of all heterosexual men were molested or even just abused - our society would be much less stable if that was so.

5. Just a comment on a general problem with ALL studies on homosexuals(even the more valid ones). Studies like these have the fundamental problem that they do not include in the closet homosexuals or homosexuals that are admitted, just that they don't advertise it much. It is much harder to find a wide range of participants, so the likeliness of getting more extreme cases is higher. Keep that in mind whenever reading a study(even if it is favorable to your view).

[John Dibble]

Brambila:

I'm now convinced you are a complete moron. If the molestation study was accurate, I could pull a random 4 guys off the street and chances are one of them was molested. Think about it, 1 in 4, ONE IN FOUR, our society would be much worse than it is now if that was the case. That is complete and utter bull and you know it. I don't think you know a damn thing about science or society, or even people in general. I don't think debating with you will profit anyone, so I'm ignoring you in this thread from now on. Good day to you, and I hope you get over your ignorance.

[John Dibble]

Brambila:

I apologize for my rudeness in the last post. Today has not been one of my better days. But I seriously think your views are skewed beyond normality.

[John Dibble]

The thing about statistics is they are often abused or wrong. You have to be careful about what statistics you accept(like that 10% population one).

On another note, I'd like to point out to you that they homosexual culture in San Fransisco is not reflective of the homosexual culture in other areas. Midtown Atlanta has a heavy homosexual population, but it is not as you describe San Fransisco to be. It may be the case that many of the more flagrant(I suppose you could say stereotypical) homosexuals move to San Francisco and the more conservative ones stay in other areas.

[John Dibble]

Brambila - of course homosexual sex shops are in homosexual areas, they prefer to be close to their clientel. A shop like that would make little money out where there were no customers. The only reason you more likely see heterosexual shops spread out is because heterosexuals are everywhere. You would more likely see a store selling asian goods in chinatown than you would in an area populated by, oh, say hispanics(where you'd be more likely to see goods pertaining to whatever hispanic community it is, such as Mexicans or Cubans, and they'd probably have their sex shops too).

Also, you may not notice sex shops for other cultures, because they might be more discreetly marked, because most of their clients(often straight whites) do not wish to bring notice to themselves by going there. Different cultures approach sexuality differently. Mainstream American culture tends to be keep sex behind closed doors(comparatively to the rest of the world, European cultures have much more liberal attitudes than we do). The Japanese, now there's some sexually open people - as I understand it it is perfectly acceptable there to read porn on a subway train. Perhaps you see these shops because the homosexual culture in general is not ashamed of sex as you are.

[John Dibble]

No, that's not irrelavent. If their population is mainly clustered in urban areas(particular areas of cities) then their sex shops will be clustered. And, as I said, could just be a cultural thing - the Atlanta homosexual areas do not have such shops. Cultures in different cities and regions are inherently different. In the south there is a more socially conservative atmosphere, in California there is a more liberal one. You mention seeing pictures of New York - I've been there, the only sex shops, strip joints, ect. that I saw were heterosexual ones and they were quite common. So, is New York disordered because they have an abundance of sex shops?

[John Dibble]

Brambila,

1. Homosexuality and paedophilia are NOT, I repeat, NOT the same. I've read a good study on this(can't find it now, but I'll see if I can find it later for you), and the findings were thus - About half of all child molestations are done by paedophiles, and the other half was not done by what would be classified as truly paedophile. The true paedophile half was attracted to children of both sexes(yes, possibly preferring one or the other, but they could have been caught in an instance with either sex regardless of preference) and had little or no attraction to adults. The other half was actually more attracted to adults than children, and usually resulted to child molestation out of sexual molestation(not an excuse by any means, but think of it like this: Prison inmates may engage in same-sex rape of other inmates, but they actually prefer women in most cases and some[particularly convicted rapists] are sent back to prison for raping another woman), and in these cases usually the opposite sex was preferred. The difference should be clear - Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex(often those of their own age group, which is what I've seen most often) and paedophiles are attracted to children. Stop linking the two, regardless of what paedophiles prefer.

2. The one from The Gay Report about 73% of homosexual men having had sex with with boys 16-19 years old(19 by the way is not a child, you are recognized as a full grown adult by law, about the only thing you can't legally do at 18 is drink). Does this statistic include or disinclude the time periods when these men were that age? If they had sexual relations with boys of their own age, should that really be included? If indeed these encounters were included, then the statistic is making a false implication. For instance, if a man had sex with a female partner, both age 16, provided a truthful answer he would say he had had sex with a 16 year old no matter what age he was asked at.

[John Dibble]

Gay marriage reminds me of opebo.

Ok, I have to know how anything having to do with monogamy could remind you of opebo.

[John Dibble]

That's not the part that reminds me opebo. Not that gay marriage is necessarily monogamous.

Well, marriage itself isn't necessarily monogamous, but typically it is. Still, I'm wondering how exactly the two are related.

[John Dibble]

It seems more likely to me that pedophilia towards little boys is a different instinct than homosexual attraction to grown men, though both technically involve sex with other males so it is easy to lump them together to make a point like Brambila did.

From what I've read, that is the case.