Do you do this on purpose? I mean, do you leave out the parts about the number of years some of these couples have been waiting in their stable relationships for the chance to marry? Or was leaving out the part that actually answers your objection an accident?
And even if you’re right and the thousands of couples who married did so on a drunken whim as Spears did, so what? unless you’re agitating that on the basis of the Spears marriage mixed-sex marriage should be illegal then it’s not relevant.
I don’t know who Tommy Mansfield is. Unless you’re willing to make divorce illegal for mixed-sex couples with children then the fact that some same-sex couples will divorce is irrelevant.
Personally, I don’t want any worst-case scenarios to play out. Unless you are willing to argue that the playing out of worst-case scenarios is reason to make mixed-sex marriage illegal, the number of such cases among same-sex couples is irrelevant.
Just out of curiosity, which actress discussing the casting couch would you like me to quote to “refute” Woody Harrelson? I’ll be happy to post dozens of actresses decrying the casting couch just as soon as you can explain to me how Woody’s experiences on the couch have any relevance to anything, much less the legality of SSM. Far from ignoring the cites, I am dismissing them as irrelevant. Please, explain to me how any of the following (abbreviated for space) cites supports the proposition that same-sex marriage should be illegal?
Relevance to marriage: zero. Also ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Actually an argument in favor of SSM as a method of reducing the number of sexual partners among gay man, and ignores lesbians.
[quote]
Judy Wieder, editor in chief of The Advocate, wrote that according to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively - (males) are much more interested in causal sex and non monogamous relationships. In the same article, Gretchen Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff writers wanted to “even cruise for sex as gay men do.”
[quote]
Relevance to marriage: low. Argues in favor of marriage as a form of sociual pressure on gay men to form stable relationships. Ignores all lesbians but one.
Relevance to SSM: zero. An argument in favor of make=ing mixed-sex marriage illegal, since one participant in this mixed-sex marriage was non-monogamous.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Unsourced. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: low. Relevance to the United States: low to zero. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. The quote is from a humor column.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance of sex addiction to marriage: zero. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. An argument in favor of legal SSM as a form of social pressure on gay men to stop looking for “Mr Right Now.” Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to amrriage: zero. An argument in favor of legalizing SSM as a form of social pressure against multiple partners. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. The sex acts performed by gay men are no more relevant that those performed by heterosexuals. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. That more gays than blacks have traveled overseas is not evidence that gays have not and do not face discrimination.
Relevance to marriage: zero. The cite is 31 years old and is not reflective of 21st century life. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 25 years old. Sexual behaviour 25 years ago is irrelevant to marriage today. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 25 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to amrriage: zero. Cite is 24 years old and, really, is meaningless. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 24 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 23 years old. Argues in favor of legalized SSM as a form of social pressure on gay men to be monogamous. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 22 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 20 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage in 2004: zero. Cite is 20 years old.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is anywhere from 15-20 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. No one other than Roddy describes Madsen and Kirk as “gay icons.” The cite is 15 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. We live in the United States. Cite is 15 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: low. Cite is 14 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 12 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 11 years old. Cite is suspect because of its use of quotation marks around the word “gay.” Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 11 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Quotes a writer, as opposed to, say, a social scientist. Cite is 11 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 10 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 10 years old. The actions of the men in one city are not representative of the whole. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is 10 years old. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: low. Argues in favor of legalizing SSM as 44% of the gay men surveyed are in long-term monogamous relationships. Ignores lesbians.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Woody Harrelson is not an authoritative source on same-sex marriage.
Relevance to marriage: zero. Cite is eight years old. Ignores lesbians.
And on and on and on it goes. The other remaining cites are all old, all ignore lesbians and all have zero relevance to the issue of legalized SSM. They were a ridicuolus waste of time and effort for Roddy to compile.
Wow, this is the first time I’ve ever been Pitted, even in only a technical sense! Should I consider this some kinda rite of passage or something?
And here I thought that commenting that a poster’s rhetoric was increasingly sounding like something Phelps would say wasn’t making a comment on that poster’s arguments. Hrm. Oh, well. Learn something new every day, eh?
How many good, stable relationships, you ask? There don’t seem to be many. If you can produce any evidence that these are anything but rare in the gay community, feel free to bring it out. Then we can talk numbers.
And I am not asking that gay people be “better”, only “roughly as good”. Straight marriages break up at a rate of something like 45-50% - far too high. Gay marriages seem to tend more to a rate of 90-95% - much higher, and therefore much worse. Why should we make the problem worse?
Lookie there - two direct answers. Not bad for a shallow, nasty shit.
And I am not little. Otto -
If you going to dismiss evidence that gay men, on average, cannot or do not maintain long-term, stable relationships as “irrelevant to marriage”, then you don’t really understand what marriage entails.
I didn’t leave anything out - you did.
You asserted that the fact that many same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses is proof that they are all or mostly in stable, long-term relationships. Which I pointed out is bogus and silly, and gave a counter-example, which was Brittany Spears.
No, the logic is that people not taking marriage seriously is a problem now. And should not be made worse by marrying a whole bunch more people who will be no more likely to maintain a stable relationship if you call it “marriage” or “civil union” than they have done so far.
IOW, I am not arguing for or against marriage (in this instance) based on the sex of the participants. I am arguing against marriages that are likely to break up quickly. Which objection applies far more to gay marriages (based on the evidence) than to heterosexual marriage.
Yes, you got it. The greater likelihood of worst-case scenarios playing out in gay marriage is an argument against making same-sex marriage legal.
If you don’t want worst-case scenarios to play out, then let’s not make them more likely by including gay marriage. That’s how the logic works. And it is a large part of what people are talking about when they speak of “defending marriage” by not extending it to people who don’t seem likely to treat it seriously.
Which objection, of course, applies to frivolous heterosexuals as well. If you can figure out a way to keep Brittany Spears from treating marriage as she has done (or Newt Gringich, or Elizabeth Taylor, or whoever), I am all ears.
There are plenty, moron, not that they need to prove anything to your ignorant ass. Lesbian relationships, in particular, are are quite stable, more so than those of us breeders.
Sexual fidelity in other peoples’ marriages is none of your fucking business. It’s jut a civil contract. Dicks-in-holes has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in the law which states that hetero couples must be faithful so why change the rules for gay people?
Nobody has to justify jack shit to you and it doesn’t hurt your marriage if two guys you don’t know want access to the same civiol benefits that you can get by saying “I do” to any crack whore off the street.
It’s not your fucking place to ask that gay people be anything. Are you Jesus? Do you have some special moral authority that entitles you to decide how “good” other people are?
Where did you get that 90% figure from, out of your fucking asshole? Cite? Not that it matters. It’s presumptious and arrogant beyond words for you to decide that you have the authority to abrogate the rights for everyone in a perceived class because of the behavior of other people in that class. If it was discovered that, say, Eskimoes had a higher divorce rate than the norm would you say that Eskimoes should then be deprived of the right to marry?
There is no such evidence and sexual fidelity is purely a religious and personal ideal. It has zero to do with marriage as a civil contract. There is nothing in my marriage license that tells me who I have to fuck or who I can’t fuck. My decision to be faithful is mine alone. A piece of paper has fuck-all to do with it.
No, didpshit, it was pointed out as proof that gay people wanted stable, long-term relationships. Many, if not most of those who applied were already in long-term relationships.
Ther’s no reason to continue letting heteros get married either, then, since there’s no evidence that men in those relationships show any more fidelity than in gay relationships.
Sexual fidelity is a weak definition of “stability,” btw, and is irrelevant to the civil rights accorded by marriage.
If you don’t want worst-case scenarios to play out, then let’s not make them more likely by including gay marriage. That’s how the logic works. And it is a large part of what people are talking about when they speak of “defending marriage” by not extending it to people who don’t seem likely to treat it seriously.
[/quote]
You haven’t shown the slightest evidence that gay marriage would make “worst-case scenarios” play out (and frankly, a worst-case scenario in my mind is domestic violence and child abuse, not two guys breaking up).
How are you going to make this determination for straight people? Are you going to prohibit marriage for rocks stars, for NBA players and for Republican Senators? What is the mathematical equation for determining “likelihood of worst-case scenarios?”
Also, why do you give a shit if other people get divorced? How does that affect your life?
Except that there’s no such thing as gay marriage yet. So what you’re comparing is marriages to relationships, and there’s simply no comparison. If we were to compare relationships to relationships, there’d be a better correlation. But marriages to relationships is comparing apples to oranges. Not that I’d expect better from someone who can’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground.
Did you read what I put after each of those cites as to the reason they were irrelevant? Or did you stop after you hit the word “zero”?
Do you think that divorce rates from 1979 should have some bearing on whether mixed-sex couples should be allowed to marry today?
Assuming that cites from two and a half decades ago are relevant, which they aren’t, then why should lesbians be excluded from marriage on the basis of what gay men supposedly are or are not capable of?
Since marriage is the single most pervasive social institution for fostering stability in relationships, shouldn’t those least able to form stable relationships be encouraged more than anyone else to enter into them?
Your “argument” continues to be laughable, or it would be if there weren’t actual people suffering as a result of naroow-minded bigotry like yours.
What percentage of straight dating couples break up before they get married? It seems to me that they would have to be included in order to make this comparison.
Judging an individual by the average is called stereotyping.
Consider: Black people, on average, are more likely than white people to commit a variety of crimes. Therefore, in Shodanopolis, black people go straight to jail at birth. Or, rather, they’re born in jail because all the blacks are already there. Sure, some of them might be good citizens, but you gotta go with the average, don’tcha know.
Pull your head out, Shodan. I can respect different opinions based on differing political philosophies, but on this one you’re dead wrong. It’s bigotry, plain and simple, and it’s hugely disappointing that you’re unable to see that.
So, Shodan, let me get this straight (pun not intended). Because some homosexuals are immoral enough marry, say, three or more times, an old friend of mine who’s gay should not be allowed to marry once, even though he and his partner have been together for over a decade now. Society as it stands now gives homosexuals precious little reason to be monogamous. Indeed, that old friend’s partner has been told he is “flaunting his homosexuality” because he had a picture of my old friend on his desk and referred to him in the same context in which you refer to your wife. I wonder if heterosexuals faced no incentive to get married and, indeed, some disincentives for doing so, if they, too might be a lot more promiscuous. As I said yesterday, setting up a Catch 22 is no excuse.
I believe the misbehaviour of other is no excuse for my own misbehaviour and will affect me only so much as I let it. In other words, just because X acts dishonorably, whether X is a person or a group of people, that does not excuse my acting dishonorably. Therefore, just because some heterosexuals commit adultery or go through multiple divorces, that does not mean it’s all right for me to do so, nor should I assume all other people will do so, be they heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. Surely a Christian like yourself is aware that having sexual urges not require acting on them? Why should this be less true for homosexuals than heterosexuals?
I refuse to buy the dichotomy which says, if I fall in love with a man, that’s a good thing to be celebrated by just about everyone, while, if I fall in love with a woman, that is an evil, immoral, or disgusting thing, assuming this person is an honorable human being.
Assuming your percentages are true (and that’s a big assumption), what is your rationale for denying the rights of the five to ten percent of gay men who can maintain stable, long-term relationships? Why should Gay Guy Steve, who is completly faithful and committed to his partner not be allowed to marry, just because Gay Guy Adam is a gigantic slut? How is that just? How is that even logical?
On top of all of that, if stable marriages are so all-fired important to American society, why do we allow divorce? Why don’t we criminalize adultery? How about we do both of those, and then allow gays to marry? That way, everyone in the nation has exactly the same rights, and you don’t have homos or heteros ruining the “sanctity of marriage.”
Or, better yet, why don’t we just agree that the government has no business legislating personal relationships, and let people marry whoever they want, and fuck whoever they want, even if those are two different people? You are a Republican, right? Shouldn’t you be arguing against government intrusion into and regulation of people’s private lives? Why do you hate freedom so much, Shodan?
Rodrigo, do not post articles from other sources here, especially since you did not attribute them. We take a rather strong stand on copyright issues, and we ban people who persist violating copyright.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
Yesterday President Bush said he finds the gay marriages in San Francisco “troubling.”
Today I found out one of my friends was wounded in Iraq. Shrapnel perforated her hand. She will mostly recover, but if it had been a few inches to the side she would be dead.
Sending our nation’s young people off to be killed and maimed in a war of familial revenge is what I find troubling.
Please, please don’t support George W. Bush this fall.
Welcome, I was getting tired and bored of dealing with all these guys alone.
I don’t take well to threats. If you wish to ban me, go ahead, I don’t care.
Every quote had its source. If I didn’t post where I’d taken the quotes from, was because it was something like “reallychirstian.com” and most pitters would not continue reading.
Otto
We get it, it doesn’t mention lesbians, mostly because they are quotes about gay MEN.
Is there a time limit to quotes? If a 20-year old-quote shows the same baheviour as a 2-year old one, it is relevant because it shows a pattern, i.e. gay men are promiscuous as hell, and now even with AIDS they still are and more so than 10 years ago. It shows recklessness
Yeah, well, you’re arguing against marriage for all same-sex couples, which includes lesbian couples, ya dumbfuck. Or are you too busy having sick fantasies about what men do in bed with each other to get that?
Well what do you know? This thread has made it to the weekend before Mardi Gras. Now, I’m no expert on New Orleans-style Mardi Gras or Carnival; I’ve only read enough about it to know it’s not my sort of scene. I gather a big focus of Mardi Gras celebrations is heterosexual sexuality and promiscuity – I’m thinking of women baring their chests in return for beads, etc. Mardi Gras and Carnival are the product of Catholic cultures, a last fling before the deprivations of Lent, and heavily connected with Catholic tradition, and yet, for the condemnation of homosexual promiscuity, I don’t hear a thing from the Catholic Church, either officially or unofficially denouncing this heterosexual promiscuity directly tied to a solemn relgious occaision. How about it Rodrigo? Anything you’d like to say about Mardi Gras? Any links to websites condemning Mardi Gras or calling it a threat to marriage and chastity? Or is it not worth complaining about because it’s something straights do?
Lent is coming. For Anglicans and Catholics alike, it’s a time to repent of our sins and our shortcomings and bring ourselves closer to God. It’s a time of year I take very seriously indeed. I am angry right now. I do not count anger in and of itself a sin, only the way it’s used. I see it the same way I see lust and love, among other things. Because I am angry, Rodrigo, as a devout Christian, I make this suggestion. Think upon your sins of arrogance, callousness, and cruelty as you have shown them in this thread. Think of your hypocrisy in forcing others to assume a burden you do not have the strength or the will to take on yourself, lifelong celibacy to be specific. Think on these things, and repent. Beggar, lepers, and tax collectors were not considered fit for human society in Christ’s time, yet those were the very people He ministered to. The person to whom He first revealed Himself to be the Messiah was a woman who’d had 5 husbands. Samaritans weren’t fit to touch Jews.
Among your mass of statistics, you missed some. The rate of depression and suicide is also higher for gay teenagers than for straight ones. I know what it is like to be told is unacceptable and insulting for me to love, or even want to love and be loved and I know the damage it does. Under those circumstances, depression is not an entirely unnatural response. It is, however, quite terrible. This is what the actions of people like you do to those who don’t have the good grace to be born heterosexual. Of all the myriad sins the Catholic Church as compiled over the years, of all the ones listed in the Bible, this is the one you single out. Murderers can and do marry, and no one protests. Homosexuals, on the other hand . . . .
I’m dumbfounded. I really am. There are people here telling homosexuals that they are hell-bound sinners who must change their innate nature in order to even start deserving basic human rights, and THEY are the ones being “persecuted” around here?
