I just don't get the gay marriage debate. I really don't.
I'm going to start with a statistic. 91% of young people say they frequently hear things being referred to as "gay" that are bad - negative, things they don't like. A survey found 84% of young people say they frequently hear the words "faggot" and "dyke" in reference to other students (In The Life, Logo Channel). In a piece where I'm addressing gay marriage, you'd think those things aren't necessarily important. But that is my point. Often when debating the issue of gay marriage, or the issue of gays in the military, or any other gay rights issue, we are arguing the topic and not the issue. …
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Barbara
Sorry, Jet. I was having serious connection issues!
77 - Jet in Columbus
I knowwwwwwwwwwwww the problem well. Mine's being caused by a web accellerator that I have to clear the files on every once in a while. It'll just sit there and I don't think it did anything, so I'll hit publish again and again and again.
Love yeah
just kidding around...
78 - Jet in Columbus
Chris must be having one hell of a time gleefully clearing his e-mail notifications about comments being posted on this string, grinning from ear to ear and screaming "I'M A HIT!!!!!"
79 - Chris Evans
Haha, Jet--I'm refreshing like crazy.
I knew this article would incite debate, but sheesh.
80 - Rohan Venkat
Excellent article.....except, what're you, a DC Fan?
81 - Chad
People don't seem to have read what I said, and instead read what they thought I said based on their prejudices. I never said anything about homosexuality. If you want to be Gay, so be it. That is your business. What I said was, that marriage has never included Gay couples, from the cavemen on, because humans developed marriage as a way of binding the man to the woman to provide for a stable way of raising children. It is "societal evolution" and was developed as a protection mechanism for society and its foundation, which is its children. Homosexuality is a different question, and one that I personally don't get involved in as what you do in your bedroom is your own business. And if two Gays want to form a legal contract binding themselves together, that is their own business.
Gay marriage cannot be consumated with children -- it is physically impossible. A Gay couple could arrange to be in charge of children, but they cannot procreate and bring children into the world. Marriage was set up to promote and protect this. And there is LOTS of literature that shows that children who do not grow up in a 2-parent, man and woman family, have sever disadvantages in life, emotionally and in otehr ways. This is fact. It has nothing to do with Gay bashing. I am not Gay bashing and am opposed to people who would try and legislate such things. However, marriage is by definition a man and woman. It has nothing to do with being a simple legal contract. Society protects families as the society benefits from having families -- bringing children into the world and providing a stable home for them. Yes, there are lots of examples of broken homes -- I am not claiming that marriage alone always results in stability. But it is the foundation of such stability.
In reply to the "bible thumping" bit. I am not a Bible thumper. I have my own religious background, which is not evangelical Christianity, but that is not the basis for my comments in the least.
It is interesting that the least tolerant folks out there are the promoters of the Gay lifestyle. Anyone who dares oppose them is biggoted, "racist", etc. but they, the Gay community, can bash others and be intolerant all they want (see "bible thumping" statement, as an example).
In summary, Society (and the government charged to protect it) receives no benefits from so-called "Gay Marriage" and hence does not protect it. It is not a civil or social right. Choice of being Gay may be, but "Gay Marriage" isn't.
82 - Rohan Venkat
Oh, and, the Gay Marriage has never been a factor in any society until now. Why? doesn't really hold up...
From Wikipedia,
Homosexual relations in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, have been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. These euphemistic terms were used to describe behaviours, but not identities. The relationships were marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period.
Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku, terms influenced by Chinese literature, has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.
Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. Kathoey are men who dress as women. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. The teachings of Buddhism, dominant in Thai society, were accepting of a third gender designation.
Just to give a few examples...
83 - Chad
I as asked by the author of the article: "what makes gay families "unstable", Chad?"
Such "unions" tend to last a lot less time than a traditional marriage. It does happen, but it is not as typical. That is a fact. But more importantly, there is a lot of literature that shows that children who do not grow up with a mother and father have emotional and other issues more often in life. Children do best in a situation with a mother and a father. Is that always possible? No. But it is something you want to promote and not detract from. Forcing a child to live in a Gay family does not allow that child to make its own decisions about is values, ideas, etc. and forces it to be in a situation that the literature has shown to be detrimental to the development of that child. Those are the facts.
84 - gonzo marx
Chad...the difference here is we are speaking about contemporary society, and a Republic which continuously seeks to expand the foundations of human Liberties
just like equal rights for the black minority didn't reach acceptance and critical mass until the early 60's...the same sex marriage issue has not achieved the same until
a) they were able to "come out of the closet" as a portion of our population
b) because of "a" and their gradual acceptance into society , the issues of their Rights has reached a societal critical mass and now needs to be addressed
in contemporary society in America, marriage is about much more than procreation...ask any gay couple where one has not been allowed into the ICU to be with their loved one because they were not "family"...or instances involving death benefits, inheritance or children
THAT is why this Issue is comeing to the forefront..and why it needs to be addressed by the secular Laws of our government on a Federal level
Excelsior?
85 - Chris Evans
Right...and where exactly did you GET those supposed "facts"?
86 - Jet in Columbus
Congrats Chris you deserve it... like a said
Open minds will love this article, closed minds won't read it, or will and deride it...
87 - gonzo marx
Chad sez...
*Forcing a child to live in a Gay family does not allow that child to make its own decisions about is values, ideas, etc. and forces it to be in a situation that the literature has shown to be detrimental to the development of that child. Those are the facts.*
so you are comparing it to some home schooled fundamentalist child who is forced to think that ID is real, or that man and dinosaurs roamed the earth about 6000 years ago?
interesting take....adn completely fallacious
Excelsior?
88 - Jet in Columbus
Ah now Gonzo get your fact straight! According to a comment on one of my strings God created the dinosaur bones and put them in the ground to test our faith in him. Dinosaurs never really existed only the Bones!!!! If you can't believe what you read on the web what can you believe?
89 - Chad
Quote: Two of my sons friends in first grade have same sex parents. Gay Marriage (here in MA) has allowed them the 'stability' to raise their children. Chad, why would you deny them that? /Quote
Sociological literature has shown many times that Children who grow up outside the "traditional" family have disadvantages in later life including emotional issues. Why are the Gay people who are raising these children subjecting them to that sort of environment? Children can't make choices and forcing them into a Gay situation is damaging to the children.
90 - Chad
Jet makes the claim: "Where did you get you 2.5 percent from Jerry Falwell or your uncle Bing? it's closer to 10-15 percent."
The Gay community claimed that 10% of the population is Gay. Rigorous studies have shown it to be much less than that. But who cares? That has nothing to do with so-called "Gay Marriage."
91 - Chad
Interesting: It says at the bottom of the page here: "Personal attacks are not allowed." ALl the personal attacks here seem to be written by the pro-Gay-marriage crowd. Interesting.
92 - Jet in Columbus
Yeah look at Gerald Ford, he was from a broken home, was adopted and became president of the YOU nited states!
Chad you're making a fool of yourself...
93 - Chad
Comments on "modern society." There are other ways other than corrupting marriage to get just rights (like ICU visitation etc) for Gay members of society. Wills, legal contracts, specific laws to address specific injustices.
94 - Chad
Rohan Venkat mentions example from societies that are claimed, I assume, to show that "Gay Marriage" has ancient societal roots.
No where in the examples given does it talk about marriage. Homosexuality probably goes back to the beginning of the human race. I do not doubt that. And there were even traditions to go along with it where homosexual partners had a certains status. But that says nothing of marriage. Those examples given do not include marriage. Interesting, huh.
95 - Jet in Columbus
You're the one quoting incorrect and biased religious right figures-show me your study that proves it's only 2.5 from a credited college or government source, CNN, U.S. Department of whatever. and I don't mean Jerry Falwell's liberty college either.
Put up or shut up.
96 - Chad
Jet said: Open minds will love this article, closed minds won't read it, or will and deride it...
Interesting observation. But not true. The Author's side is no more open minded then those pointing out the flaws. Especially you Jet. You seem to be particularly excitable and prone to bash and personally put down anyone who disagrees with you -- calling names etc.
97 - Chris Evans
What in any way, Chad, is closed-minded about my article?
98 - Jet in Columbus
Oh your so right Chad, I shouldn't have gotten so upset about Comment 64, I don't know what could've set me off like that.
you've made me so ashamed of myself
snif
99 - Chad
gonzo marx tried to make the comparison that forcing a child to grow up with 2 Gay watchkeepers instead of normal parents was no more worse than some child growing up in a fundametalist Christian home being taught about Intelligent Design etc.
You have to be kidding me. "Facts" about ID, Evolution, Dinosaurs, etc can be learned later in life and do not lead to emotional issues, issues of identity, etc. Lack of proper role models on the interaction between man and woman, etc provide a much greater harm to the child than needing to correct some scientific facts later in life. No comparison.
100 - Chris Evans
Chad, you've still yet to provide any credible sources to subsantiate the claims you've made about gay parents and their effect on children.
101 - Chad
Jet says: "You're the one quoting incorrect and biased religious right figures-show me your study that proves it's only 2.5 from a credited college or government source, CNN, U.S. Department of whatever. and I don't mean Jerry Falwell's liberty college either.
Put up or shut up."
Google is your friend. You will not find many instances to support the 10% number, which appears to come from Kinsey's book on human sexuality, and which has thoroughly been discredit. You will find lots of support for 4-5%. One problem is that there is no exact definition of being "Gay."
102 - Chris Evans
Again, Chad, I ask you. Source?
Google is hardly credible.
103 - Chad
The author asks me what about his article is closed minded.
The answer: His assumption that the only real opposition to so-called "Gay Marriage" could be on religious grounds. He admits he is closed minded in the article, as that is the only grounds for opposition he can see or "accept." And his comments in the comments section bear this out.
104 - Chad
This is an interesting article on percentage of gays and looks to be objective at first read.
familyresearchinst.org
105 - Chris Evans
The answer: His assumption that the only real opposition to so-called "Gay Marriage" could be on religious grounds.
Actually this is what I said:
I doubt you'd get many answers that didn't somehow have something to do with religion.
He admits he is closed minded in the article, as that is the only grounds for opposition he can see or "accept."
...Now this doesn't even make any sense.
And his comments in the comments section bear this out.
Way to be strategically vague. If you're saying because I have an opinion, and that is what makes me closed-minded, that is faulty logic.
106 - Jet in Columbus
All I had to do was look at the link to see how biased that website is. GOVERNMENT-UNIVERSITY-NEWS website
Duh?
107 - Chris Evans
LMAO!!
I'm most definitely going to trust the statistics from the "Family Research Council".
108 - Chad
Chris Evans, the original author, says: "Again, Chad, I ask you. Source?
Google is hardly credible."
This is a stupid comment. Google is a listing of sources, some of which are credible and many of which are not credible. In and of itself there is nothing to be "credible" about with Google. Google makes no claims and hence cannot be called credible or not.
Google is your friend. You can do much research by using Google. You need to be able to discriminate between good resources and bad resources that Google may present, but that is your issue and not Googles.
I will report back with specific references about the children being raised by Gays versus children raised in "traditional" families when I have specific references. I have read them before but did not keep them anywhere, as I was not planning on being in this discussion, so I have to find them again. It may not be today.
109 - Chris Evans
"Google is a listing of sources, some of which are
credible and many of which are not credible. In and of itself there is nothing
to be "credible" about with Google. Google makes no claims and hence cannot be
called credible or not."
I know this, Chad. And that is precisely my point.
Instead of pointing out specific references to articles that support your claims, you simply say "Oh well..I found them on Google". Which could be any number of uncredible sources--OR you just blowing smoke up your own ass. I have no clue, because the only opportunity I'm given to examine your sources for myself is randomly weeding through "your friend" Google.
110 - Chad
Chris Evans said: "LMAO!!
I'm most definitely going to trust the statistics from the "Family Research Council"."
You can laugh all you want. It appears to be objective in looking at the facts. Just because it comes from some one who has the word "family" in it doesn't mean it discredits them. Did you actually read what it said? It is an objective look at the various literature and the pros and cons of the various studies with regards to reliability, etc.
Chris, you claim to be open minded. Yet you dismiss any and all criticism that is made, merely because of reference to someones overview of the literature and press who happens to work for someone who has the word "family" in their organization name?
111 - Kadimiros
"Gays only make up about 5% of the population. Let's make a wild guess and assume that only 2.5% of those are male and the other female."
Bad math alert! 2.5% of all males + 2.5% of all females = 2.5% of total population. (Shaking head sadly at American education.)
112 - Chad
Chris Evans says: Way to be strategically vague. If you're saying because I have an opinion, and that is what makes me closed-minded, that is faulty logic.
No more faulty than claiming all the people who disagree with you are closed minded.
113 - Chad
Chris Evans said: "I'm most definitely going to trust the statistics from the "Family Research Council"."
The report was not claiming any stats of its own. It was a review of other people's studies and press reports. You obviously didn't even read it.
114 - Jet in Columbus
I say again A CREDIBLE GOVERNMENT OR UNIVERSITY STUDY OR A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE, not your religious based crap.
You can't quote a reliable unbiased source because you can't find one.
You're a sorry piece of work kid
Grow up
115 - Chad
"
Instead of pointing out specific references to articles that support your claims, you simply say "Oh well..I found them on Google". Which could be any number of uncredible sources--OR you just blowing smoke up your own ass. I have no clue, because the only opportunity I'm given to examine your sources for myself is randomly weeding through "your friend" Google.
"
I presented a reference that is an overview of other studies that were NOT done by the "Family Research Institute" -- they merely made the summary. That was a specific reference.
Please provide me with specific references, besides Kinsey, that show that 10% or more of the population is gay. Show me. Come on Jet and Chris, show me.
I refered to Google as there are any number of articles there that refer to studies that show that 10% is an over estimation. Take your pick.
116 - Chris Evans
First of all, I do not, nor have I ever claimed that people who disagree with me on any random issue are close-minded.
But when it comes to the issue of tolerance, acceptance, respect of people who are unlike you for reasons they cannot change--YES, you are close-minded if you choose to continue and perpetuate bigotry. It's not about political beliefs, it's about moral values. Something your team claims to have all figured out up on its soapbox.
Second, it's no secret that right-wing Christian extremists groups mask themselves as "Family" groups and councils--therefore your source is biased and not credible. Good try, though.
117 - Chris Evans
Dude, nowhere in the article, nor anywhere in my comments have I claimed that 10% of the population (Of the U.S. OR of the world) is homosexual. I would never make this claim because I myself know that those numbers are based on Dr. Kinsey's research which was merely an estimate--not a scientific number.
118 - Chad
Jet said: "I say again A CREDIBLE GOVERNMENT OR UNIVERSITY STUDY OR A CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE, not your religious based crap."
None of the stuff I said is "religious based" at all. Please present a CREDIBLE STUDY OR NEWS SOURCE of your own that shows that 10% or more of the population is Gay. You can't, because they don't exist.
Go look up these references. There is enough info there for you to find them.
The best studies include (about post-pubertal homosexual experience):
a. USA:
Kinsey-NORC 1970 " 8.2% M, 4.3% F after age 15
FRI-Dallas 1984 " 10.7% M, 7.4% F after age 12
NCHS 1988-91 " ² 3.5% M since 1977 (over 50,000 respondents)
GSS 1989 " < 6.3% M after age 17
RTI-Dallas 1989 " 7.6% M, 2.7% F since 1978
GSS 1990 " 4.8% M after age 17
Billy/Guttmacher 1993 " 2.3% M in last 10 years
b. Australia:
Ross 1986 " 11.2 M, 4.6% F
c. Great Britain
Forman/Chilvers 1984-86 " 1.7% M in random controls, 2.7% M among patients
Johnson 1992 " 6.1% M (almost 19,000 respondents)
d. France
Spira 1992 " 4.1% M, 2.6% F (over 20,000 respondents)
e. Norway
Sundet 1987 " 3.5% M, 3.0% F
f. Denmark
Schmidt 1989 " 3.8% M
Melbye 1989 " 2.7% M
3. Median of studies listed above: 4.1% M, 2.0% F
Upper quartile: 7.0% M, 4.6% F
Studies on actual sexual orientation:
2. The best studies include
a. USA:
Bell/Weinberg 1970 " < 2% total M and F (ratings of siblings)
Cameron/Ross 1975-78 " 3.1% M, 3.9% F
FRI 1983 " 5.4% M, 3.6% F (4,340 respondents)
Trocki 1988-89 " 3% M, 2% F
NCHS 1988-91 " ² 3.5% M (over 50,000 respondents)
Catania/NABS 1992 " 2% M, 2% F (4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents)
Billy/Battelle 1993 " ³ 1.1% M
b. Denmark
Schmidt 1987 " 0.6% M
c. Canada
MacDonald 1988 " 2% total M and F (> 5,500 college student respondents)
3. Median of studies listed above: 2% M, 2% F
Upper Quartile: 3.3% M, 3.7% F
Anecdotal evidence:
E. Other evidence consistent with these findings
1. Census Bureau count of gay/lesbian couples
a. Figure of 157,400 is less than 1% of all US households
b. Washington Blade reported that "The total includes 88,200 Gay male couples and 69,200 Lesbian couples. The overall total of 157,400 represented less than one percent of the 91 million U.S. households. Unmarried heterosexual couples totaled approximately 3.1 million... representing about three percent of the total households."
2. Admissions from the NY Times on 4/16
a. First a belated report on Presidential exit poll results the Times had previously "buried," showing only 3% M and 2% F homosexuals: "In fact, one survey analyzing the President vote found that 3 percent of men and 2% of women said they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
b. The Times also quoted a marketer to the homosexual community: "Sean Strub, who runs a marketing firm in Manhattan that keeps mailing lists of homosexuals for sale to advertisers and politicians, estimated the size of the country’s gay population at 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent."
119 - Chris Evans
Chad, I made my comment about google BEFORE you posted the link to your biased Family Research article.
120 - Chad
More on Jets assumption that anyone who disagrees is based on religion.
None of what I said as my opinion is based on any religious thought. I am not a bible thumper or any sort of evangelical Christian. I could care less what Falwell or any of his cronies say or think. I don't regularly hear from them -- only when quoted in the news, perhaps.
I only care for the facts and for the good of society.
If you want to be Gay, that is your business. Please keep it your business.
I am done for now but will make a post when I have some specific references to studies that show the best environment for raising children is a 2-parent man/woman home.
121 - Chris Evans
As I've stated before, Chad.
Gay people would LOVE to keep their gayness their business--to the same extent that I'm sure you keep your straightness your business.
The problem is, however--people like you keep that from being possible.
122 - Chad
Chris Evans said: "Chad, I made my comment about google BEFORE you posted the link to your biased Family Research article."
Show me the bias in the article I posted. It is a summary of other research not performed by them.
123 - Chris Evans
Secondly, no one WANTS to be gay.
And don't you dare try to argue otherwise.
124 - Jet in Columbus
And you might note that the vast majority of his biased figures are higher than his stated 2.5
125 - Chris Evans
Chad, simply because they did not research the statistics on their own, does not mean this compilation of theories is not biased. Yes, I did read the article, but I don't even NEED to in order to determine where their interests lie, and where they lied before they even sat down to compile this information.
Furthermore, however, as I never even brought UP anything about numbers or percentages as far as the gay population--I don't even understand what number of gays there are (a number we will probably never exactly know) has to do with the issue of gay rights.