Do you support gay marriage?

[hadimd]

 

[mc ukrneal]

A few years ago I had a very long debate with Scarpia on precisely this issue and I'm not going to reiterate my arguments here but my answer is "no". I have one question though: does anyone know of any statistics regarding how many gay marriages (either in absolute numbers or as percentage of gay couples) have actually been registered in those states and countries where it is legal for homosexuals to marry?

A number of statistics here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

[Florestan]

A number of statistics here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Thanks, Neal.

[Iconito]

A number of statistics here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

WOW!!! That's AMAZING!!!      Do Jews now, please! And black people! Please do black people! Please? 

"Advancing Faith, Family and Freedom"... Scary.

[knight66]

I am not in a position to argue about the specifics of the various stasticics. I do however find it odd that the two groups being chiefly compared were married heterosexual couples and unmarried gay couples. A lot of the stats for unmarried but 'stable' heteosexual couples would be very different from the married couples.

The two unmarried groups will stastically be rather closer, though not close in all aspects. One stat that did stick out was physical abuse in unmarried heterosexual couples being very much more common than married couples. Closer to what was claimed in gay couples.

It made for an interesting though curious read.

Mike

[Que]

"Family Research Council, advancing Faith, Family and Freedom"

Sounds like a very unambiguous source... Whose "freedom" would they have in mind, I wonder?


Another interesting view about a much "quoted" Dutch study:

What the "Dutch Study" Really Says About Gay Couples.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam's gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else.

This turns out to be a very common tactic among anti-gay extremists. Because they're eager to portray their positions as being backed by scientific research, they often turn to medical studies to support their arguments. And they are especially fond of studies of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), which they can count on to provide especially juicy statistics to describe "what homosexuals do". But of course, all you really learn from these studies is what some homosexuals do — the ones who go to STD clinics because they've picked up a disease. By turning to Dr. Xiridou's study, these activists are following a well-worn path.

Q

[Holden]

If you're going to say that your personal experience supports your opinions, I have to ask if you actually personally know children raised by same sex parents.

YES - it's my main (probably only) reason for opposition,

[drogulus]

    One might come to a negative position on heterosexual marriage on the basis of personal experience, but it would be better to generalize from a larger sample. I expect gays will screw up in the same way. Besides, how many drunk drivers would it take to justify banning cars? I agree at some point we might have to go the extreme route, but I find it a little bit too convenient to go to the nuclear option first, when we don't do that for everyone else.

     

[The Six]

I don't know why gays are so eager to get their marriage legalized. We're doing them a favor by not allowing it. Marriage is a failed institution.

[eyeresist]

"First, because it makes as much sense to me as a black person trying to join the KKK"

That assumes that all churches are anti-gay, but there are churches that are accepting of  the LBGT community, and that'd marry same-sex couples right now, but don't only because it isn't legal.

Well, there's a much-quoted passage from Leviticus condemning homosexuality (specifically male), and since the Bible is supposedly the moral foundation of Christianity.... But of course there are plenty of other passages from the Bible that are conveniently ignored. Did you know it's a sin to wear a cloth of two fibres? God hates yr cotton/polyester blend! Of course, the whole thing is nonsensical. But on principle I don't think gay people should have anything to do with Christianity.

[Todd]

Did you know it's a sin to wear a cloth of two fibres? God hates yr cotton/polyester blend!

Yes I did know that.  100% polyester for me.

[Karl Henning]

... Of course, the whole thing is nonsensical.

Of course, that is a tendentious simplification which is no great distance from nonsensical, itself.

[Sammy]

I don't know why gays are so eager to get their marriage legalized. We're doing them a favor by not allowing it. Marriage is a failed institution.

Tell that to the millions of couples who have been married for 30+ years.

I decided to add a few more words.

From what I've read, about half of all marriages fall apart.  Why?

1.  Poor decision making in selecting a partner.  I see this all the time - really stupid choices being made.

2.  Inadequate handling of transitional passages.

3.  Not operating as one unit, but as two individuals who happen to be married.

[Philoctetes]

But on principle I don't think gay people should have anything to do with Christianity.

What does Christianity have to do with marriage?

[Iconito]

What does Christianity have to do with marriage?

You are kidding, right? They are the Guardians of the Holy Institution of Marriage!

It's all explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bja2ttzGOFM

[Kontrapunctus]

I wonder how many Teabaggers...err...Tea Party members miss the satire in it?

[eyeresist]

Of course, that is a tendentious simplification which is no great distance from nonsensical, itself.

I won't deny that some theologies can be rigorously worked out. The problem is that the premises are fantastical. But that's okay - we all depend on belief systems to give life meaning. It's an irresistable instinct. There's a great quote from The Spy Who Came In From The Cold: "Some people keep canaries; some people join the Communist Party." And some people have religion. The trick is to be aware that you have an instinct for faith, and head for the most helpful one whilst avoiding the most destructive.

[Karl Henning]

I won't deny that some theologies can be rigorously worked out. The problem is that the premises are fantastical. But that's okay - we all depend on belief systems to give life meaning. It's an irresistable instinct. There's a great quote from The Spy Who Came In From The Cold: "Some people keep canaries; some people join the Communist Party." And some people have religion. The trick is to be aware that you have an instinct for faith, and head for the most helpful one whilst avoiding the most destructive.

You seem to speak as one out of sympathy with Faith; I see that viewpoint, and I'm not the chap to browbeat you over it.

And all in all, your remark here is largely fair, which I respect.

[The Six]

Tell that to the millions of couples who have been married for 30+ years.

I gladly would. I'd also imagine that many of those millions would have been together whether or not marriage existed.

[Polednice]

I knew that the arguments against same-sex marriage would be illogical, but I'm surprised the naturalistic fallacy has been popular so far (rather than the more predictable religious arguments).

If you are against same-sex marriage because it is "unnatural", are you against the use of microwaves? Are you against driving cars? Are you against reading? Alternatively, are you in favour of competitive infanticide, witnessed in a number of primate species? It doesn't even make sense to claim that it is unnatural, as homosexuality is evidenced in hundreds of species, even where the relationships are not affected by the available numbers of the opposite sex (as with zebra finches). Nor is marriage an institution with an analogue in the natural world - do you see chimpanzees conducting bonding ceremonies?

Time and again, it seems that people are against gay marriage when they have no real experience with gay people. "But I have gay friends!" Let me tell you, they are not your friends - if you knew them well, you'd be in support of gay marriage instantly because you'd realise that gay people are normal people, with normal hopes, normal dreams, normal desires, and normal parenting abilities.

EDIT: Here's an interesting analogous stumbling. You know that intrigue about the recent TIME cover to do with late breast feeding? Well it's apparently the norm in most human and primate societies. What we deem to be unnatural tends only to be those things that fall outside our most common experiences. In reality, they may not be unnatural at all. I wonder what else that could apply to...