well doomed, I don't have a problem with gay relationships, nor do i have a problem with gay marriage per se... what i have a problem with is reformulating an essential building block of our society without a solid reason, methodology, and plan to stop it at just homosexual marriage.

marriage is FAR too easy to dissolve in the US, $75 and a judge... that is all it takes for an amicable divorce.

It would not be quite so easy for myself and my wife as she is german, and we would have to get divorced twice IAW both american and german law.

I like the german law, requiring a formal seperation before the divorce is allowed, is not a bad move and one we could use here.

Well, GuardianAngel, would you have a problem with brothers and sisters marrying if incest was legalized? The fact that heterosexuals decided that they didn't want the government coming into their bedroom has opened the door to the possibility. Personally, I don't think it will happen... incest has a profound effect on intra-family relations and there are the issues of control and abuse of those who are supposed to be able to trust a family member, but... should the US for some reason decide to legalize incest, would you be against incestuous marriage?



I agree... and far too many people get married for the wrong reasons... there is a serious lack of education regarding what makes a good, long lasting marriage. But this has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals.

Talk about bias, your source is Pat Robertson's university!. Sorry, but none of the professors there have a viewpoint that is more scientific or valid than the APA. Regent, Liberty, Oral Roberts, and Brigham Young already begin with a premise and attempt to find "truth" or at least, attempt to make the truth fit into their respective theology. The APA does not. Unlike those institutions, the APA is the largest group of professional psychiatrists and other mental health experts in the country. I have a hard time believing that theri studies, and all their members, are simply deluded and that Regent and other places are oasis of truth and insight.

as you have pointed out before incest in certain cases IS legal in the US do i have a problem with that ... of course i do ... in the end you and i both know that marriage is about providing a safe and stable enviroment in which to raise children, thath is why the state is involved at all....


without children it is merely a social contract nothing more, nothing less....

Yes, it is.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question: Would you argue that the State would have the right to prevent siblings from marrying if incest between siblings was legal?




Personally, I agree.




I don't know that agree with this... while I agree that marriage is about children, this doesn't mean that those marriages where no children are present provide no benefit to the state. Having couples engaged in committed, monogamous relationships where they are working together as a team to achieve whatever goals they have set out for themselves is certainly a benefit to the State. Generally, there are benefits to the State in terms of healthcare and the spread of sexually transmitted disease. There are economic benefits - two people working together to achieve an economic goal are better than one person struggling to achieve the same goal. Socially, it is less chaotic when you have people in structured marital environments.

Also, I don't understand what this would have to do with same-sex couples. Same-sex couples raise children. In fact, the majority of the couples in the Goodridge decision had children.

those children were exclusive of the homosexual relationship ... either that or i need to call ripley's ...until we legalize cloning children cannot come from a homosexual couple. Children are raised best by a family in which both sex roles are modeles by their respective sexes., anything outside of this as I have said before is less than ideal, and should only be used as a last resort.

I think that a child being raised by a homosexual couple is better than an orphanage, or state run institution. but i also think that it is less than what a child deserves.

A couple of the children were born in the relationship through artificial insemination from an outside donor, much like what sometimes occurs with a heterosexual couple in which one of the partners is unable to produce children.

As regards the ideal environment, in Massachusetts where this case was tried, the State views homosexual couples as equally ideal parents as heterosexual couples. The Legislature passed a law (before Goodridge was heard in court) making it illegal for sexual orientation to be considered a factor when determining whether a couple should be able to adopt. So, adoption by a homosexual couple is not a last resort or even considered less than ideal... they are considered equally ideal. This wasn't the courts, this was "the will of the people." So, why should "the people" then prevent these couples from raising their children in the ideal environment for doing so? The State of Massachusetts doesn't see these couples as less ideal parents than heterosexual couples, so it makes no rational sense for them to use the rationale that they are less ideal parents in order to prevent them from being married, does it? That seems to be a contradiction, doesn't it?

So you honestly think that a gay man can act as a proper feminine role model for a girl ?

1) why is it that the life expectancy of gay men so much shorter?

a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population). Hogg RS, Strathdee SA, Craib KJ, O'Shaughnessy MV, Montaner JS, Schechter MT. 1997. Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men. Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.

Using several different measures, including life expectancy determined from obituaries, two large random sexuality surveys (in the USA and Great Britain), and a survey of those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old.Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL. 1998. Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.

A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years Cameron P. 2002. Homosexual partnerships and homosexual longevity: a replication. Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678.

2) can the promiscuity of gay men in general be a healthy model for children ?

According to Centers for Disease Control interviews, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners, the first several hundred homosexual men diagnosed with AIDS had an average of l,100 lifetime partners. (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay men. NY: Dutton.)

A 1991 study of homosexual men in New York City revealed that the average number of lifetime sexual partners was 308. (Meyer-Balburg H. Exner, T.,Lorenz G., Gruen, R., Gorman, J, Ehrhardt, A (1991) Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men Journal of Sex Research. 28, 1: 3-27.)

Clinicians Mattison and McWhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. Most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. Homosexual theorists respond by redefining promiscuity as normal and healthy for homosexual men. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Schmidt, 1995)


A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28% having 1,000 or more sex partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)


Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, but in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from 1-37 years, "all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 252, 253)


In a study of 2,583 older homosexuals, "the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500. In addition, 10.2% to 15.7% had between 501 and 1,000 partners, and between 10.2% and 15.7% reported having had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners" (Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354).

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven, et al, found that only 2.7% of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime. (Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," p. 354.)

For homosexual men, the term "monogamy" doesn’t necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term "open relationship" has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 213)



I am certain we can also find studies that show that the incidence of drug & acohol abuse are much higher in gay relationships than in heterosexual ones.

32 percent of homosexual men and women abuse alcohol, as compared with 7 % (10 % of men and 5 % of women) in the general population. (Fifield, L., Latham, J., Phillips, C. (1977) Alcoholism in the Gay Community: The Price of Alienation, Isolation, and Oppression, A Project of the Gay Community Service Center, Los Angeles, CA)


Homosexuality correlates with higher alcohol use, frequency of intoxication, marijuana use, cocaine use, and other drug problems. There is a higher incidence for males than females. (McKirnan, D., Peterson, P. (1989) Psychosocial and Cultural Factors in a Alcohol and Drug Abuse: An analysis of a Homosexual Community, Addictive Behaviors. 14: 555-563.)


Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 have used marijuana; 75% have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2% have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5% have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2% have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82. %; psychotherapeutics, 58.8%; stimulants, 52.9%; inhalants, 41.2%; and hallucinogens, 41.2%. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5% of men and 9.1% of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5% of gay men and 23.5% of lesbians." ( William F. Skinner "The Prevalence and Demographic Predictors of Illicit and Licit Drug Use Among Lesbians and Gay Men" American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 84, Number . , 1994. Page(s) 1307-1310)


that the percentage of homosexuals who have been sexually abused is FAR higher than heterosexuals.

37% of lesbian youths had been physically abused, and 32% had been raped or sexually attacked. 19% had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis, about 30% drank alcohol more than once a week, and 6% drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide "sometimes" or "often," and 18% had actually tried to kill themselves. More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year, and more than one-third had been depressed. (J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81)

A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, reported that 41.4% reported an occasion of forced sex. Seventy-nine of the boys reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14. Of these, 15.2% were already HIV-positive. (Lemp, G., Hirozawa, A., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katx, M. (1994) Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 6: 449:454.)

29% of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6% of adult children of heterosexual parents. Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50." (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772)


"Incest was more common among bisexuals and homosexuals of both sexes" than among heterosexuals. While less than 0.8% of heterosexual males reported have had sex with a brother, 12% of homosexuals reported having had sex with at least one brother. (Study of more than 9,100 adults in U.S. metropolitan areas) (Paul Cameron, and Kirk Cameron "Does Incest Cause Homosexuality?" Psychological Reports. Vol. 76, Number . , 1995. Page(s) 611-621)


The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender." (Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)


David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences." (Bill Watkins & Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 316)

A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found: "In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40% (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28% stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes.'" (Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001): 6)




That the rate of domestic abuse is staggering in homosexual relationships.

A U.S. Justice Department study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals: an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. (U.S. Department of Justice, "Intimate Partner violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99," Bureau of Justice Selected Findings, November 1994. www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipva99.pdf) By contrast, the 1999 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,558 victims (U.S. Department of Justice Statistics : www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm)


A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that more than half reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. This includes verbal, emotional, psychological, and physical abuse. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59)


Among lesbians, "rates of verbal, physical, and sexual abuse were all significantly higher in their prior lesbian relationships than in their prior heterosexual relationships: 56.8% had been sexually victimized by a female, 45% had experienced physical aggression, and 64.5% experienced physical/emotional aggression." (A 1991 survey of 350 lesbians, 75% of whom had been in a previous relationship with a man) (Donald G. Dutton "Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy" Violence and Victims. Vol. 9, Number 2. , 1994. Page(s) 167-178.)

Women are four times more likely to be victims of domestic violence in a lesbian household than in a married household. (Claire Renzetti, Violent Betrayal) Married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships ("Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2)


The incidence of domestic violence among homosexual men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population (D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, New York: Haworth Press, 1991, p. 14).

44% of the gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationships;
13% reported sexual violence and 83% reported emotional abuse. Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians: 55% reported physical violence in their relationships, 14% reported sexual abuse, and 84% reported emotional abuse. (Study of 499 ethnically diverse homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered teenagers and adults) (Susan C. Turrell "A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample" Journal of Family Violence. Vol. 13, Number . , 2000. Page(s) 281-293)




and we wont even start on how being raised by a homosexual couple does raise the likelyhood of a child becoming gay themselves.


This is not only a question for the parents themselves but of the people that will be associating with the parents.

the "homosexual lifestyle" is not healthy.

GuardianAngel,

So you're saying that this was a lie?





That was on Friday and you posted this on Sunday. Did you really read all these studies and make this complete 180 in 2 days?

Robert S. Hogg, the primary author of this study, wrote a letter to the editor to the Journal of Epidemiology. In it, he stated that his work is being misrepresented by those who have an anti-gay agenda.



Sorry, but your source here repudiates the very mischaracterization of it as being "evidence" of low gay mortality.




It's interesting that you would cite Paul Cameron, a man who is hardly in the mainstream of his profession. His methodology is notably flawed.



http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...ts_cameron.html

Sorry, this is another out of the mainstream hit-piece from a man with an agenda. He and his ilk can't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals proper, they have to set up shell-journals in order to see the light of day.





This is also a mischaracterization as well. Rotello himself advocates for safe sex and is gay. He documented the bath house scene in San Francisco and the then counter-cultural idea that monogamy was just for straight people. Citing this as "evidence" would be like using statistics from promiscuous straights(i.e.-swingers, etc.) and using higher rates of STD infection to argue against mainstream heterosexuality.



Also a mischaracterization. Both Mattison and McWhirter were gay and were involved with one another. They documented the counter-cultural aspect of gay lifestyle at that point in time in an area. To think that promiscuity is equally supported today by the broad homosexual population stretches into the absurd. Once again, should we take promiscuous heterosexuals and make a pole vault leap equating findings with the general population? I found it interesting that a lot of christian websites cite the work of two gay men who were documenting the fast and loose gay lifestyle of the early '80s.



A complete refutation of this work can be found here. Once again, statistics for a subset population is being misused, and the numbers are no longer relevant as some time has passed since 1978.

Some more food for thought:




The evidence is clear, religiously minded institutions and leaders have used antiquated data, distorted the data in regards to scope and size of samples, not to mention mischaracterizing the research that has been conducted. The simple fact is-outside of shady and non-peer reviewed journals and medical societies, gay adoption and parenting and lifestyle in general, is healthy. It is productive, and it's just as good as straight parenting.

From the APA website:

actually entspeak,

I was thinking about the homosexual couples and people that I do know, of the dozen or so gay couples i do know and have spoken with at least one partner in the pair was sexually abused as a child. I went looking for numbers out of curiousity and found these, I know it is hard swallow. but the rate of mental health disorders, abuse ( both physical and sexual) and substance abuse all appear much higher than i had thought... I tried to stay away from FRC sources i guess i did not do that well enough for nebraska....


do i have a problem with gays ? nope none at all ... what adult choose to do themselves is on them.

I do worry about children being brought into that enviroment though.

oh and by the way it was my brother in laws friend who was molested by a family friend when he was between the age of 6 & 8.

Well, there are a large number of people with mental health disorders regardless of sexual orientation. I found it amusing that you would mention a study titled, The Price of Alienation, Isolation and Oppression. It's like you're blaming homosexuals for their own oppression. If there were fewer people calling the "homosexual lifestyle" a lifestyle as if it were a choice that they could make and stating that they lead unhealthy lives simply by being who they are, they wouldn't feel alienated, isolated and oppressed and there just might be fewer incidents of mental health problems and substance abuse.

As for physical abuse... domestic violence is a problem. The bigger problem is that it isn't reported nearly enough (and I speak from experience here). When you have a group that is routinely abused by heterosexuals, you are dealing with a group that may be more likely to report domestic abuse... call it the "I don't take that from them, I'm certainly not taking it from you" syndrome.

As for sexual abuse, you need to be clear about the distinction between a homosexual act and someone with homosexual orientation. There are many people of heterosexual orientation who engage in homosexual acts. Pedophiles are, primarily, heterosexual in orientation.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html

As for lifespan, nebraska is correct. In fact the researchers mentioned did the same study over with different results and another person recreated the survey with more recent data with improved results. They've included a spreadsheet so that you can check the data yourself.

http://grantdale.customer.netspace.net.au/...of_Hogg_00.html

The difference is now 2 years as opposed to 20 years.

As far as any study done by Cameron, it would be garbage. The man is a joke. He testifies in court cases and I know of one case in which the Texas judge basically called him a fraud.

In the end, all that your evidence really proves is just how great a committed, monogamous relationship such as the one created via marriage really is.

There is no study that conclusively shows that children will become homosexual by being raised by homosexuals. There just isn't. I can tell you this though. Natural sexual orientation will out... it will, despite the best efforts of anyone attempting to fiddle with it, show itself. If the story of David Reimer isn't proof that sexual orientation is more than environment, I don't know what is. And these were parents who committed themselves to raising their boy as a girl. I find it highly that simply being raised by a homosexual couple would change someone's sexual orientation.

so we blame the world for the multiple times higher incidence of mental illness in general. drug, alcohol, and physical abuse and then you WANT to place children into this enviroment?

Question: Do we prevent couples from marrying in this country because they have substance abuse problems? Do we prevent entire groups from adopting children based on substance abuse problems? Same-sex couples jump through hoops to adopt children... their lives are scrutinized. If there were substance abuse problems and physical abuse problems then I'd say certainly... keep them from raising children, but I'd say the same thing for a heterosexual couple attempting to adopt. Wouldn't you? Or would you allow the abusive, alcoholic heterosexual couple adopt a child but prevent the homosexual couple only?

no, of course i would not want either couple to adopt.

We dont prevent them from marrying, but maybe we should consider it ...

we do prevent people from adopting when there are known substance abuse problems.

But let's be honest here a far larger percentage than the general population of adult homosexuals were themselves victims of sexual molestaion as a child.

Do I want children in an enviroment where they will be surrounded by illicit drug use? no,

Alcohol Abuse? No,

Physical and Sexual abuse? Hell NO.

just these things alone will disqualify a large percentage of the gay population from adopting... and if the parents themselves are not involved in these activities ... more than likely the children would be exposed to these things second hand through family friends or associates.

Mandatory drug tests? Yeah, that'll end up ruled unconstitutional within a month.



As we should.



And what is the relevance of this? Are you saying that a victim of sexual abuse as a child should not be allowed to raise children? Where is the logic in that?



Nor do I.



I see... and being allowed access to marriage - something that has, historically, had a calming effect on most people in terms of their "wild days" - obviously would not have the same effect on homosexuals? Is that what you're trying to say?

You ignore the fact that many people who are pushed to the outside of society live fatalistic lives. The more these people are accepted, the more they feel accepted, and the less fatalistic the lifestyle.

Again, this leads me to this question:

Was this a lie?



You make some grand assumptions based on a cursory examination of facts (a quick glance, if you will).

So you seem to have a problem with gay relationships:

You think they are unhealthy, you think they are child molesters, you think they would lead children raised in those environments to become homosexual themselves, you think they are drug addicts and physical and sexual abusers of children and of themselves.

You seem to have a problem with gay marriage far beyond your initial statement as well:

As stated above, you believe children raised in this environment would be more likely to become homosexual, you believe that children in this environment would be abused, you believe that couples in this environment would be more prone to domestic violence (despite a study that you posted that shows that married couples tend to have fewer instances of domestic violence than non married couples.)

There is a word for this... it's called homophobia. If you wish for that to be considered anything else, read and actually analyze the studies you've posted, check to see if they've been refuted - validate those refutations... and then make a decision based on that. It is extremely hard to swallow that you made even a cursory examination of those studies in 2 days. Someone told you something and you reacted, you found information to support that reaction. But you didn't check to see if the reaction was rational or if the support for that reaction was indeed valid.

ent ... let me take this one step at a time.

1) I dont have a problem with 2 consenting adults in a homosexual relationship... if they wish this for themselves so be it i have stated this time and time again.

2) Homosexuals by in large are far more likely to have been sexually abused than the general public.
And many of the things i have read and been told is that those who have been the victims of abuse are far more likely to abuse themselves. Do i believe that "all gays are child molesters" not even close, but you seem to take the opposite extreme that anyone who sexually assaults a boy is not homosexual but a heterosexual who likes boys ...


3) the incidence of physical abuse is FAR higher among gays than even cohabiting straights.

If consenting adults want to do something that is fine , but dont drag kids into the mix this is not homophobia... it is not wanting to sacrifice children on the alter of PC.

So, you have no problem beyond the possibility that they might sexually abuse a child... whether it be one of the partners child or the child of a family member or other friend. You've already stated this as a concern, GuardianAngel... you can't then state that you don't have a problem with it. You're backpedalling, here.



And where is your evidence of this? Not Cameron, I hope. I won't buy any statistics provided by that nutjob. And I never stated that anyone who assaults a boy is not a homosexual... but the evidence you provide seems to take the imply that all homosexuals want to have sex with young boys. That's just not true. Pedophiles make up less than 1% of the male population. They are sick puppies... attraction to young boys has nothing to do with sexual orientation... homosexual orientation doesn't mean that you like young boys... it is just like heterosexual orientation... unless your a sick puppy who likes young girls. To imply anything different - as Cameron does - is ridiculous. And just because one engages in a homosexual act does not mean that one is of homosexual orientation.




So... then why did you say you had no problem with same-sex marriage per se, GuardianAngel? You claimed that the reason you didn't want it was that you weren't sure that it would be able to stop there... now, suddenly, you've come up with all these studies - which I highly doubt you've taken more than a "quick glance" at - to claim that gay marriage would lead to child molestation.

This has been a topic of discussion in my abnormal psych and ethics class. I know maybe three gay people, but that's rather besides the point. As I have done some research on the subject of children who grow up in homosexual households I can say that
a) there haven't been any conclusive studies on the mental health of children who grow up in these households
that there is some speculation that these children (because they may be deprived of a sam-sex role model) will have some problems with gender identity confusion, stress (caused by society, school, peers, other parents etc).
c) that the chilren who are adopted into these homes are already susceptible to psychological disturbances due to the face that they are adopted
d) That, yes, many studies state that homosexuals have more substance abuse problems, incidences of sexual molestation and promiscuity, bla bla
e) nearly all of the papers I read were biased and sometimes even ridiculous, and completely unprofessional as far as I'm concerned. It was so sad to think that the things I read were considered proof of something

My opinion..
Isn't the church and state supposed to be separate? However, I suppose this can't be so considering the fact that the state recognizes marriage and grants the parties involved certain rights.... So the church should have the right to deny marriage to gay people, that's just fine, if that's what that church believes in so be it. ,the government shouldn't be able to force them to marry people. But, since the state gives rights to people that are married the state should grant those rights to people who are in a marriage like relationship and wish for that to be recognized so as they can have those rights and the peace of mind that goes with it. If god has a problem with gays ,okay, fine...but since we all don't believe in god and don't have to then i really don't understand how "we" can deny two people the rights that the state grants married couples. How horrible is it that hate and fear so obviously govern our society. We don't get to say who should be together, we don't get to say who should have kids, for gods sake mentally challenged people can have babies can't they?
This is such *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. If I wanted to marry another woman and we wanted to adopt, or lets say someone just wanted us to raise their child for whatever reason, we should be able to do that. We would not molest that child, and we wouldn't be shooting up in front of it either. I mean would any of you like to grow up in an orphanage?! They do background checks you know......! Shouldn't we all be rallying to improve our outdated public school system or something... Besides gay marriage could be a really good thing.Remember it's not a virus it's love. C to C or P to P, it's all alright with me

One more thing,
how many racists enjoyed those scientific studies that were published on the superiority of the white race. How many men thought of themselves as biologically superior to women because Aristotle or whomever told them so.... So let's get real. I suspect that all of the people on this forum, throwing out some little study they found written by someone that is just as hateful as they are, is probably just trying to hide their prejudices behind "science".. what do you think? Come out come out wherever you are...

[quote name='entspeak' date='Apr 18 2007, 12:54 AM' post='213166']
[quote name='GuardianAngel' post='213155' date='Apr 17 2007, 05:29 PM']
1) I dont have a problem with 2 consenting adults in a homosexual relationship... if they wish this for themselves so be it i have stated this time and time again.[/quote]

So, you have no problem beyond the possibility that they might sexually abuse a child... whether it be one of the partners child or the child of a family member or other friend. You've already stated this as a concern, GuardianAngel... you can't then state that you don't have a problem with it. You're backpedalling, here.
[/quote][/quote]

There is a HUGE difference between having a problem with what consenting adults do ... and putting children into the mix

A=/=B



[quote]2) Homosexuals by in large are far more likely to have been sexually abused than the general public.
And many of the things i have read and been told is that those who have been the victims of abuse are far more likely to abuse themselves. Do i believe that "all gays are child molesters" not even close, but you seem to take the opposite extreme that anyone who sexually assaults a boy is not homosexual but a heterosexual who likes boys ...[/quote]

And where is your evidence of this? Not Cameron, I hope. I won't buy any statistics provided by that nutjob. And I never stated that anyone who assaults a boy is not a homosexual... but the evidence you provide seems to take the imply that all homosexuals want to have sex with young boys. That's just not true. Pedophiles make up less than 1% of the male population. They are sick puppies... attraction to young boys has nothing to do with sexual orientation... homosexual orientation doesn't mean that you like young boys... it is just like heterosexual orientation... unless your a sick puppy who likes young girls. To imply anything different - as Cameron does - is ridiculous. And just because one engages in a homosexual act does not mean that one is of homosexual orientation.

[/quote]

I dont think all homosexuals want to molest little boys... how could i allow my brother in law to spend any time with my son if i thought that ...


[quote]3) the incidence of physical abuse is FAR higher among gays than even cohabiting straights.

If consenting adults want to do something that is fine , but dont drag kids into the mix this is not homophobia... it is not wanting to sacrifice children on the alter of PC.
[/quote]

So... then why did you say you had no problem with same-sex marriage per se, GuardianAngel? You claimed that the reason you didn't want it was that you weren't sure that it would be able to stop there... now, suddenly, you've come up with all these studies - which I highly doubt you've taken more than a "quick glance" at - to claim that gay marriage would lead to child molestation.
[/quote]


I love this quote by GLAAD

"The incorrect stereotype of the gay man as a pedophile is one that has been medically and scientifically debunked," she said. "Heterosexual men were responsible for 74 percent of assaults on male victims and 77 percent of assaults on female victims, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study (July 1994)."

But homosexuals account for only about 3% of the population so does that mean 3% are comminting 26% of the sexual assaults against boys, and 23% of the assaults aginst girls?

even at the inflated kinsey numbers of 10% that would make a gay man statisticlly 2.6 X more likely to be a child molester.

What study was she referring to? Here's a study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in July 1994:
Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals

It states that 2 out of 269 offenders were reported to be homosexual. That's less than one percent.

Perhaps you can track down this study that she was referring to?

This is such a meaningless argument.

I recall a story some years ago about a doctor in a small town in Kentucky; married w kids; he was a big benefactor of the local high school; he even built a large weight room in the basement of his large home and let the high school football team use it, as they had a much inferior facility. It turned out he had duped some of the teenage football players into engaging in sex acts with him and had given some of them expensive gifts, and when caught, he killed himself.

What is this doctor? A heterosexual pedofile, because he had a wife and kids?; a bi-sexual?; a homosexual pedofile? A homosexual? A fun guy?

I know what I would call him--a homosexual. But, being "scientific", which is, after all, all that matters, ahem, you could spin his situation to fit whatever signposts you needed to fit your study. Unless you know what criteria are being used to categorize subjects in the studies you cite, you know nothing.

If you have sexual relationships with members of your own sex, whatever your age and whatever your willing or (un)willing partner(s)' ages, then anyone sensible without an axe to grind would say you are a homosexual, whatever else you may be. The pedophilia concept is almost irrelevant. But again, I realize this is not "scientific". Ahem.

Forgive me quick, but all you have done here is point out a single example of how such a study MIGHT be flawed if they used methodology and terminology as limited and weak as you describe. While this is a fascinating hypothetical, thats all it is. A Hypothetica. Its like me using the movie 'capricorn One' as 'evidence' the moon landing was faked. Suggesting a possible hypthetica problem is irelevant unless you can produce some evidence that this study actually WAS flawed, that the methodology WAS flawed and that there were ACTUAL problems with it.

From a distance it looks to me like you don't LIKE the answer produced by the study, and so came up with a purely hypothetical problem to explain to yourself how the study COULD have been flawed so as not to produce the results YOU wanted.