View Single Post
Old 12-06-2003, 03:16 PM   #85
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally posted by ZDawg
Why? I have to agree with them on this...
Then my opinion of you isn't as high as it was before you said that.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Or how about an animal? I mean what if the animal likes it?
Having sex with another species, one that isn't sentient, is hardly the same as falling in love and making a mutual commitment with an adult of your own species, now is it?

Originally posted by ZDawg
Or how about a kid? what if the child enjoys it also?
Falling in love and expecting a commitment with a child isn't the same as two consenting adults agreeing that they are compatible for a long-term relationship. I think using the "child" analogy is a sign that your digging for straws.

Originally posted by ZDawg
If homosexuality is so right, then what is wrong with having sex with a family member? I mean, if both family members agree, its ok isnt it?
Why would you assume that incest taboos that exist in families of heterosexuals wouldn't also exist in families of homosexuals. The fact of the matter is, the incest taboo has the hidden agenda of maintaining variation within the gene pool. In addition, incest taboos within families also prevent the complications that go along with intimate relationships (familial relationships can be complicated enough). But throughout history, this taboo has been ignored in the interests of socio-economic and political gain. King Tutt was likely husband to his sister as were monarchs in England or France in the past.

Originally posted by ZDawg
Rather then demanding everyone see it your way, look at how they see it, in hopes that you can better underastand the point you are trying to argue.
The only "demand" is that the "moral majority" end it's illogical oppression of homosexuals. The institution of marriage belongs to the state, not the church. Laws of the state should should ensure that all people have equal access to the law itself. This means that marriage between two people of the same gender should be allowed. Ending this prohibition will most likely have lasting economical contribution to society in general as the number of "family" incomes will increase (A unit with $50 - 100 k income per year can afford to buy more than a unit with $25 - 50 k income per year).

MK finally posted some of the data, which I admittedly haven't had the opportunity to look at yet, but if Datheus' quote was accurate: "The median length of homosexual relationships in the SIGMA survey was 21 months," then one also has to consider that there is a full 50% of those surveyed that had relationships lasting longer than 1.8 years. One has to wonder how many of that 50% had relationships that were still on-going at the close of the study. I'll check the link later, perhaps it will give me a clue as to where I can find the actual peer-reviewed paper that includes all data and methodology......

An interesting point, too, is that the study group included "gay and bi-sexual men in England and Wales." Question: is same-sex marriage legal here? If not, wouldn't the study be affected by the stresses associated with couples who cannot finalize a legal commitment to each other?

Even not having the chance to read it yet, it looks like the SIGMA data favors the same-sex marriage argument.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: