Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_bcspace]

Where did you show that abuse in lesbian relationships ISN'T of a lower ratio than hetrosexual relationships?!

Since you can't find to find anything to bolster your claim about lesbian health, I'll help by uping the ante....

http://www.4women.gov/owh/pub/factsheets/lesbian1.pdf

Do I need to reference another one?

[_Ren]

Where did I so claim?

You said:

Either way, it puts the lie in your implied notion that lesbianism is superior to male homosexuality

And the subject was the ratio of abuse in homosexual relationships.
Please do try and keep up...

Where did you show that it isn't higher?

You own reference stated clearly that the homsoexual abuse ratio ISN'T higher.
Did you read your own reference?!

My - you're a strange one...
And why aren't you tackling all the other points I made...?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Indeed. They may have reasons, but no compelling ones. One can find just as much sex, companionship, security, etc. outside marriage. The only thing unique is raising children.

I'm so glad LDS support my sexual lifestyle!

When did I say that? Just because people give reasons does not mean they are moral or ethical.

Oh dagnabit... so should I get married then? To have sex?

Is that a compelling reason?

I would think for all the horny dry humping Mormons it is. :D

And I asked you the above. If you don't support the lifestyle do you suggest that people that intend to be sexually active go ahead and get married?

Is SEX a compelling reason to marry.

Peronally I think sex is a compelling reason NOT to marry. But that's just me. :)

[_Runtu]

Which was not the gist of my argument. A doctor is simply a better reference than an activist's non referenced opinion. All I said was that I haven't had to pull out the big guns yet.

You intentionally started with the poor research? Why? If you're going to cite a doctor, at least choose one who has some non-anecdotal evidence and doesn't have an obvious bias.

The complete lack of scientific references to support your view is the lazy research here. A 'may' does not support.

Can you explain to me what my view is? I haven't offered a view to support. I made two points:

1. Your citation of the Klamecki article was poor research. I stand by that, and nothing you have said has suggested otherwise.

2. I asked you what the compelling reason for denying homosexual marriage is.

If you think I have a "view" I've tried to support, you're a poorer reader than I am (and that's saying a lot). ;)

[_bcspace]

Either way, it puts the lie in your implied notion that lesbianism is superior to male homosexuality

And the subject was the ratio of abuse in homosexual relationships.
Please do try and keep up...

And to my numerous references in support of my point, an activist was quoted. Lesbian health benefits was also claimed. I believe I have sufficiently put the lie to that also with my last reference but perhaps you'll come up with something that'll cause me to have to pull out my other ones.

[_guy sajer]

Where did you show that abuse in lesbian relationships ISN'T of a lower ratio than hetrosexual relationships?!

Since you can't find to find anything to bolster your claim about lesbian health, I'll help by uping the ante....

http://www.4women.gov/owh/pub/factsheets/lesbian1.pdf

Do I need to reference another one?

I don't have time to read this, but for those who do, I'm curious about something. If the cited document identifies specific health risks related to lesbianism,

1. Check to see whether the risks are related to lesbianism itself (e.g., women having sex with women) or whether it's related to other factors, such as social interactions or pressures, tangential behaviors (e.g., lesbians are less likely to get pap smears), or what.
2. Balance out the unique health risks of lesbians to those of heterosexuals. That is, if lesbians have greater risk for something, do heterosexuals face greater risk exposure to something else. That is, take it in context and totality rather than citing specific things that fail to present a balanced, overall picture.

I'm curious, bcspace, what is your working hypothesis, and what's your rationale for it?

[_Zoidberg]

Now regarding Bogaert.....

You have a 2006 study stating that homosexuality may be inherited. All I need is a study stating that it is not inherited and it can be earlier because may does not overturn what has already been established. I do have such a study.....

P. S. Bearman and H. Bruckner, “Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction” American Journal of Sociology 107 (2002) 1179-1205

Do you have anything else that would cause me to have to up the ante(which I can do)?

Having confidence is good, but you have overdone it beyond any reasonable point. This study was conducted earlier than Bogaert's; it claims to have falsified the hormone transfer hypothesis because they operate from a premise that the effects of hormone transfers should be insensitive to birth order. Bogaert shows that this premise is wrong.

As for the Committee on Lesbian Health Research Priorities, you can find their conclusions here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:D-6 ... cd=8&gl=us

[Guest]

And to my numerous references in support of my point, an activist was quoted.

...which said that abuse within homosexual relationships is not higher than hetrosexual relationships.
Read you OWN reference. You will see it in black and white.

All your other references were dispelling the myth that no abuse happens within homosexual relationships.
Well OF COURSE abuse happens within homsoexual relationships. Who claimed that it didn't.

The false claim was made by YOU. When you said that abuse happens far more frequently in homosexual relationships.

Whenever your ready to actually admit this was a false claim, please holler.

I believe I have sufficiently put the lie to that also with my last reference but perhaps you'll come up with something that'll cause me to have to pull out my other ones.

As far as your last reference, it clearly lists the reasons for why Lesbians experience stress...

Identity Issues - Stress may result from the burden of hiding one's lesbian identity from family or coworkers

Legal Issues - Stress can come from a feeling of legal isolation and lack of cultural acceptance of living situations. Lesbians do not have many of the same legal rights as married couples, and lesbians who are parents may face difficulties with parental rights when parents seperate

Discrimination - Stress effects may be the greatest in lesbians who experience multiple forms of discrimination, such as those who are also members of ethnic or racial minority groups. The combination of homophibia, racism and sex-based discrimination puts the health of these women in 'triple jepopardy.'

Do you actually READ this stuff bcspace? Are you just blindly throwing things at the wall...?
This reference is damning your attitude to this issue.
The reference says that lesbians are suffering stress because of bigotry and discrimination within the society they live in.

...what does stress lead to?

...smoking? Sure.
...obesity? Sure.
...alchohol use? Hell yeah.
...substance abuse? Of course.

You are the cause of this. You, and your kind.
That's what the reference says! Your own reference.

Your own references are damning you.

[_bcspace]

1. Your citation of the Klamecki article was poor research. I stand by that, and nothing you have said has suggested otherwise.

You have not shown it. I simply maintain it's better a better more believable reference then that of an activist. The poor research was in your initial attempt to smear it because of the other work it appeared in.

by the way, since no counter references were forth comming, I uped the ante anyway.

2. I asked you what the compelling reason for denying homosexual marriage is.

And my answer is that there is no compelling reason for the state to legitimize such marriages.

[_Runtu]

You have not shown it. I simply maintain it's better a better more believable reference then that of an activist. The poor research was in your initial attempt to smear it because of the other work it appeared in.

by the way, since no counter references were forth comming, I uped the ante anyway.

I disagree that one activist Trump's another. Crappy research on the other side does not excuse crappy research on yours. For what it's worth, I was not attempting to "smear" anything. Rather, my reason for posting the source in which it appears was to suggest that it might not be a particularly scientific article (and that turned out to be the case) that may have an inherent bias (which also turned out to be the case). We should have been suspicious of the source. And if you've noticed, I have not once attempted to "counter" your reference.

And my answer is that there is no compelling reason for the state to legitimize such marriages.

Thank you for answering that question.