Canadian Bill Allowing Same-Sex Marriage Passes

[Zeradul]

http://www.mykawartha.com/ka/news/p...p-3391748c.html

Go Canada!

Here's why Same Sex marriage should be allowed. The government is made up of people, and those people do not have the RIGHT to make laws for or against what two people can do, as long as they aren't harming anyone. It ISN'T the government's place to start telling us what we can and cannot do.

It is not of government's job to try to regulate behavior that doesn't harm anyone. Doing so just threatens liberty everywhere.

[ScrotcH]

zera i want pics of you and your husband

[Ruckus]

zera i want pics of you and your husband

well,  we DONT want pics of you and yours.    ya drunk bday biatch !

[Stinger]

Way to go, Canada! Unfortunately, it's at least a democratic president away from happening down here, and most the democrats are too scared shitless to do the right thing in the "gay rights" field. Just a massive chunk of America is too fucking stupid to realize that it doesn't matter.

I love the phrase "threat to family values"... Always makes me laugh.  It seems to a large portion of America, everyone should have a gun, they should be allowed to drive 95 down a highway, drinking 2 six=packs of budweiser a day is fine, watching "Who wants to marry a midget" on FOX is a full-family experience...

But 4 guys in a "daisy chain" in their bedroom is somehow a clear and present danger to "little Timmy's fragile mind".

Mommy fucks around, Daddy drinks, then hits mommy. The kid asks why, Daddy says "Daddy drinks because you cry". Daddy send his car off "to the shop", but little Timmy sees a 6'6 blonde with 4 layers of bright make-up driving it around town. A week later, little Timmy can't sleep because mommy's yelling at daddy at 3 am for giving her the crabs...

But somehow, Bruce and Lance who live down on the corner are horrible people because they always mow their lawn on time, and their socks always match their pants.

Then there's the hypocracy. The double standard. Being a gay girl today is just so chic. It's hip, it's "in", it's the new black. Everyone's doing it, hell, it even gets you 10% off at "Hot Topic"!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have sex with some lesbians.

[Zeradul]

I expected a gay joke, but I figured it would be from Briman or chew.

Laws that exist for no reason that restrict personal liberty need to be identified one by one and eliminated.  That kind of discrimination is possibly the worst kind.  Arbitrarily restricting rights and freedoms with nothing more than myth and superstition to base it on.

50% of Heterosexual marriages end in divorce.  What's so special about that INSTITUTION where the definition is 'half of the fuck up'

There's a Penn & Teller Bullshit on this topic, it's great.  It's the Family Values episode (302) :  http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=bullshit

[CycloWizard]

Maybe someone here can explain the justification for allowing gay marriage.  Marriage is a contract, not a right (in fact, it appears under the definition of marriage in Merriam-Webster).  Accordingly, society must get something back from this newly wed gay couple in exchange for benefits, as this is the definition of a contract.  So, then, what is the benefit that a gay couple gives society?

[Merc248]

everything else but a new born child?

...

i'm not joking :\

[zephyrx]

what are the benefits that a straight marriage gives to society? and who's to say that marriage is a contract between the couple and society? isn't it a contract between the two people in the relationship?

by your own definition of marriage (a contract not a right), why would same-sex marriage be illegal in the first place?

oh and real life doesn't really follow the dictionary, just an fyi

[Stinger]

They contribute intense collaboration on advanced interior decorating skills!

In all seriousness, Cyclo, you want to know the justification for gay marriage?

What's the justification for the hetero variety? Zera said it, the divorce rates are sky-high (A lot worse then 50% depending on the city). Even if you're a judgemental dumbass (Before someone says it, the last two words combined are meant to be contradictory. It's called "humor") and have a problem with homosexuals, how can you possibly say homosexuals are going to do anything worse then the heteros have been doing with it?

Oh, and another thing.
Contract, noun, (kontrakt); An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.

Where does it say society gets something back? Marriage is a contract between two people. If Jesus loved you, he'd have blessed you with a head that wasn't stuck up your ass.

Hugs and kisses, big boy.
Josh "Big Pappa" Johnson

[Zeradul]

So, then, what is the benefit that a gay couple gives society?

They give society the MOST important thing.  They exhibit freedom and liberty.  Not allowing people rights for any reason other than potential harm to others is Injustice.

When the Nazi's began restricting the rights of the Jews, some people didn't have any problems with it, because they didn't like Jews, or because they weren't comfortable around Jews, or didn't have any interest in ever associating with Jews.  That was just the first step, pretty soon, all kinds of freedoms and liberties were being trampled, and not just the Jews.  In order to have a free society, you've got to fight for every freedom and every liberty, even if it is something that will never affect you directly, and EVEN if it is something you find repulsive or distasteful.

The Government has no place in any bedroom.  Fuckin A, GTFO.

Check it out, the Vatican is pissed. (Imagine That) http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/21/vatican.marriage.ap/

[joel]

END OF SOCIETY

[Ruckus]

Check it out, the Vatican is pissed. (Imagine That) http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/21/vatican.marriage.ap/

Maybe, if the Christians are smart, they'll have an ANTI-GAY Crusade !!!! And kill off all Blasphemers who dont adhere to they're strict "moral" guidelines. And if they do it wont be the first time !!!

[CycloWizard]

what are the benefits that a straight marriage gives to society? and who's to say that marriage is a contract between the couple and society? isn't it a contract between the two people in the relationship?

If it were only a contract between individuals, then society would not regulate it.  After all, any couple - gay, straight, incestuous, or other, can sign a contract between each other for whatever they like.  The legality comes in when they want society to take part in the contract.  Gays have always been able to be married just like anybody else.  They just couldn't get a marriage license.

As for what heterosexual marriage gives society, there are a few things that it may potentially give:
1. children - the future (taxpayers) of society
2. stability in the household (could also be argued for homosexual marriage, though the literature suggests that gay marriages don't offer this to the same extent, if at all)
3. proper environment for raising children - literature shows that the presence of both sexes in the home is greatly beneficial to the upbringing of the child.  So, even if a straight couple is sterile, they could still adopt and raise it properly.

Does it always work out this way?  No, certainly not.  But I can't think of any other reasons for society to give any benefits for marriage.  In fact, I don't think the government should be in the business of marrying at all.  You are all trying to imply that not having gay marriage legal is somehow depriving gays of having the right to have a relationship or have sex, which is patently false.  Nice try with invoking Nazis though, Zera, but go check up on Godwin's Law. 

[Ruckus]

Cyclo, You imply the term "literature" ALOT. Can you give us references pls ? And btw, how long have same sex couples adopted or surrogated children anyway ? Not long enough to make a relevant scientific theory I'm sure.

And how about that 50% divorce rate we heterosexuals got going !!!  WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO us heterosexuals PWN !!!

[Mnementh]

Cyclo, as far as your little list of benefits for hetero marriages, well, it is all bunk.

#1: Procreation isn't necessary anymore. Some would say that there is already a problem with over-population, and that the human race doesn't have the need to procreate anymore.  Also, there is far more children out there than families willing to take them in.  Since gay men cannot have children by themselves, they will help to alleviate the problems of having too many unwanted children sitting in foster homes waiting to be adopted.

#2: "Stability" is relative. Taking the example of divorce rates bewteen heterosexual couples in this country can you honestly say that stability is abundantly present?  Even though my parents are still married, my household was far from stable, so even those families that are intact often only present the image of stability while the reality of the situation is far from it.

#3: This whole point is purely a judgement call.  Who the hell has the right to dictate what is 'proper'?  Just because you may not think gay marriage is proper doesn't mean you have the right to force that opinion on those who disagree.  Don't give me that bullshit about 'proper', that is just fucked up.  And, like Ruckus mentioned above, you seem to base your argument on literature, but don't provide any links to said literature...

There are NO reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry that aren't based in personal prejudice and fear.  It is time for this country (US) to get over our Puritanical history and embrace open-mindedness, but as long as we have bible-thumping, fear-mongerers running this country there is no hope that a change for the better is on the horizon.

[CycloWizard]

Cyclo, as far as your little list of benefits for hetero marriages, well, it is all bunk.

#1: Procreation

Don't need to procreate anymore?  In many countries, the birth rate is already lower than the death rate, resulting in negative population growth, which would obviously result in the extinction of the race.  So, you might not want to make the wild, reckless claim that procreation is no longer necessary.  Some would say that overpopulation is a problem, but they'd be wrong.  A simple energy balance indicates that we only use about 3% of all the energy input from the sun, and that's including the oil/coal/petroleum products that store energy from the last few million years or so.  Can't grow enough food to feed everyone?  Wrong again.  We in the US have the capabilities to grow enough food to feed the entire population of the planet at this time.  The only thing lacking is a suitable distribution system (and the related technology that would enable it).  If the population were to continue increasing, it wouldn't even be a revolutionary step for us to increase output of food to meet the new demand.

#2: "Stability"

#3: proper.

You can use your anecdotal evidence to support your points until you're blue in the face.  Fact is, I don't define what is 'proper', so there's no need to demean me as some sort of bigot for simply regurgitating what I find in the relevant literature simply because you haven't bothered to read it yourself.

There are NO reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry that aren't based in personal prejudice and fear.  It is time for this country (US) to get over our Puritanical history and embrace open-mindedness, but as long as we have bible-thumping, fear-mongerers running this country there is no hope that a change for the better is on the horizon.

Blah blah blah.  The same trite, ignorant line that seems to be the only support used to prop up the entire gay marriage argument.  Unfortunately, I already clearly stated that gays have always been allowed to marry, just as anyone else can.  The difference is that society need not recognize said marriage unless society thinks they can get something out of it as well.  This is the definition of a contract.  Your argument would force me to sign Barry Bonds to play hockey, simply because he should have the right to play hockey.  Asinine, at best.  Try examining where your views are coming from.  In the rush to appear open-minded, righteous, and just, people simply want to allow anything without rhyme or reason.  You simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a closed-minded bigot who must get all his information from the Bible rather than actually thinking for yourself.  Oh the irony...

Cyclo, You imply the term "literature" ALOT. Can you give us references pls ? And btw, how long have same sex couples adopted or surrogated children anyway ? Not long enough to make a relevant scientific theory I'm sure.

There is extensive literature available on this subject - it's one of the most thoroughly researched areas in sociology.  If you actually want journal articles and such, I can dig some up.  There was even a recent article on it in Reader's Digest.  If you really care to read up on it, it's not at all difficult to find.

And how about that 50% divorce rate we heterosexuals got going !!! WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO us heterosexuals PWN !!!

WTF does this have to do with anything?  If anything, it's an indication that weddings should not take place in the legal domain but be left to private/religious organizations where the original meaning is intact.

[zipfruder]

I wouldn't trust Readers Digest for their objectivity - they publish anything to dupe people into their stupid sweap stakes.

[superorc]

calling it a distortion of God's plan for the family.

That's gotta be the most hilarious thing I've ever heard.

Maybe, if the Christians are smart, they'll have an ANTI-GAY Crusade !!!! And kill off all Blasphemers who dont adhere to they're strict "moral" guidelines. And if they do it wont be the first time !!!

Too bad most gays don't believe in owning guns.

[Ruckus]

 There are NO reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry that aren't based in personal prejudice and fear.  It is time for this country (US) to get over our Puritanical history and embrace open-mindedness, but as long as we have bible-thumping, fear-mongerers running this country there is no hope that a change for the better is on the horizon.

VERY well said Mnem and Zera. 

and what I find shocking is when religion is applied to authority (ie. Islamic militants, Evangelical christians) Freedoms are restricted or removed.  A very disturbing common denominator dont ya think ?

[Mnementh]

Cyclo, you really have your head up your ass. In your attempt to refute the points I made, you said absolutely nothing. Poverty and hunger don't stem from a negative population growth.  If we have the means of feeding everyone on the planet and we don't, it is less a problem of distribution than it is one of human apathy and selflishness.  Just look at the amount of children in this world in orphanages and foster homes waiting for someone to adopt them and you'll see how big of a problem over-population is.  I've been into Africa, into a couple of the poverty stricken areas of South America...I've seen first hand the problems with runaway birth rates and frankly, "a simple energy balance" is one of the most laughable things I ever friggen' heard.

If all you're doing is "simply regurgitating what I find in the relevant literature" then you're not thinking for yourself.  I, on the other hand, have decided to take it one step further and actually put some thought into what I read and interpret and define it against experiences that I've had in my life and the way I personally think and feel.  But I understand how easy it is to just read something and take it at face value, keeps ya from having to do any real thinking.

If you think trying to break down barriers to equality is trite and ignorant, then, well, you've only proved yourself to be those very same things also.  Your post defies logic and has no relevance to this discussion, so if you post any further opinions and skewed perspectives I'm simply going to ignore you and let someone else have at them.  If there is anybody who'd actually like to offer some serious points against allowing gay marriage I'd be more than interested in addressing your points.

[Stinger]

There is extensive literature available on this subject - it's one of the most thoroughly researched areas in sociology.  If you actually want journal articles and such, I can dig some up.  There was even a recent article on it in Reader's Digest.  If you really care to read up on it, it's not at all difficult to find.

Now, I'm in marketing. 80% of what I do is collecting information that allows one to make "generalizations" that ring true often enough that you can take them to the bank. So I'm not going to say there hasn't been enough data collected to make a true judgement, I know you can crunch numbers and get a definitive indicator surprisingly quickly. That said, I would actually like to see some documentation that says what you're saying. So please, if it's not too much trouble, I'd appreceate it if you'd produce them.

While I'll certainly look at any numbers collected, I'll also certainly weigh the source. Like it's been said, "Readers Digest" is far from an infallable source. But if you can produce statistics mined by impartial sources, I'd be very interested in seeing them.


In the meantime...
(published by the World Population News Service);

• 600,000 square miles of forest cut in the last ten years
• 26,000,000,000 tons of topsoil lost
• 88 nations classified by the UN World Food Program as unable to provide enough food for their inhabitants
• 960 million illiterate people; 130 million children lacking access to primary schooling
• the world's population increasing by nearly 100 million people per year

Now I'm not arguing that we (The entirety of the population of the planet earth) have the ability to feed and cloth every last person alive. Since the UN estimates that the population plateu will probably be between 9 and 11 billion people, and that the planet could potencially product food for 33 billion, it could, theoretically, be done. But, that 33 billion people worth of food would come at the price of serious environmental effects, and would require genetically altered food product and lots of rather "socially charged" fertilizer. Now I for one really don't give a fuck about genetically engineered food or these fertilizers, they've been proven safe to enough of an extent that I don't mind eating it. But a lot of people do have these issues, which means we can't dismiss them.

The fact that we have the ability to produce enough food is irrelivant. Because we're not gonna. And even if we did, we're not gonna do what needs to be done to get the food out there. There's statistics proving human apathy everywhere, I wont bother to reproduce them. Suffice it to say, the chances of a global governance being established in such a way that it would feed and cloth everyone are slim to none, and the chances that any governing body of that magnitude wouldn't come with some pretty evil side effects are even more dismal. So, sorry friend, you can't say overpopulation isn't an issue. People die every day, in every country, because they don't have food or shelter. And even if we had the food, the shelter issue is one hella imposing problem by itself.

So, there you have it, statistics from reputable sources that point rather conclusively that overpopulation is, to take from the vernacular of the youth of today, "a motha fucking assfuck" of a problem.

As for suitability, here's an article from the National Adoption Information Clearing House. http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gay.cfm

Notice the ".gov"? While I myself am not always trusting of the united states government and its agencies, I've found social workers to be a sincerely notable exception. Plus, most of the people who are against homosexual marriage are actually for our current governmental incarnation, at least in many of it's policies. So we can certainly say that from both sides of the arguement, this is a reasonably reputable source.

The site deals with tackling the myths of gay and lesbian parenting. While it covers many aspects, here's a short clip (It's a 10-page read, with lots of very good statistics, so I wont bother posting all of them. If you can read this, you can read the report) with one of many statistics that I find telling in showing that there is no evidence that comes close to stating that same-sex parents have any negative effects on their offspring.

In custody cases involving a gay or lesbian parent, courts have considered the fact that a child might be teased as contrary to the best interests of the child. They argue that the stigma attached to having a gay or lesbian parent will damage a child's self-esteem. This has been refuted in many studies. Research has found that although children of gays and lesbians do report experiencing teasing because of their parent(s), their self-esteem levels are no lower than those of children of heterosexual parents.

Your average kid is fucked up enough that pretty much all of them have something that will at one point in time have others trying to make them feel shitty. It's been proven repeatedly that "Your mommy fucks your other mommy! Haha!" is really no more detrimental then, for example, "You have glasses! Haha!", "You're fat! Haha!", "You suck at dodgeball! Haha!", and "Your mommy has sex with my daddy! We can cry together...".

In closing; Show your statistics. Please. By all means. I'd really like to see numbers saying that gay people are worse people in ANY respect, that doesn't come from a right-wing source with political agendas.

By the way; Seriously, you should all try having sex with lesbians. Just because you're heterosexual, doesn't mean you can't have sex with two bisexual women. I highly recomend it, in fact. Good cardio work-out, keeps you on your toes. And it's hot. Dear, god, so hot. And if all three partners are sensetive to eachothers needs, and honestly care for eachother, it's not detrimental to any of the parties self worth, or self esteme. And it's hot. So hot. But polyamory is a topic we can save for another long rant.

PS: Seriously, Jesus doesn't love you. The statistical chances of him existing aside, the statistical chances that any person loves you are very very slim. Even if you have a very close network of friends and family, and it can be quite large, how many people are in the world? If Jesus existed, how much of a chance do you think you'd have to be on his speed-dial? I mean, do you know how valuable your "Anytime minutes" are? You don't just spread em around between 6-7 billion people... I mean come on... really...

[Zeradul]

In custody cases involving a gay or lesbian parent, courts have considered the fact that a child might be teased as contrary to the best interests of the child.

WTF.  Here's what is hillarious about that.  So the problem with homosexual parents is teh BIGGOTRY of OTHER PEOPLE.  Wow.  Yep, it's time to never to anything that might land you on the wrong side of someone's biggotry.

[CycloWizard]

Cyclo, you really have your head up your ass. In your attempt to refute the points I made, you said absolutely nothing. Poverty and hunger don't stem from a negative population growth.

Nice strawman.  I'm glad you can tell me that I have my head up my ass, then proceed to attack me with nothing but logical fallacy.  I'll not attempt to refute this claim, as I never made one to the contrary.  If you want to actually address a point that I made, I'll address it. 

If we have the means of feeding everyone on the planet and we don't, it is less a problem of distribution than it is one of human apathy and selflishness. 

You're right - it is largely apathy.  If people can't make money off it, then why bother?  America as a whole is the pinnacle of selfishness.  Only the individuals that comprise it make it something better.

Just look at the amount of children in this world in orphanages and foster homes waiting for someone to adopt them and you'll see how big of a problem over-population is.  I've been into Africa, into a couple of the poverty stricken areas of South America...I've seen first hand the problems with runaway birth rates and frankly, "a simple energy balance" is one of the most laughable things I ever friggen' heard.

Yes, it's laughable because you obviously don't even know what an energy balance is.  I merely stated that, from an energy standpoint (the most common one adopted by proponents of overpopulation propaganda), the world is capable of handling many more people.  Further, food production, the next most common argument I hear, is not an issue.  So, what is the issue that indicates overpopulation?  Some dreamed-up correlation between orphanage population and world overpopulation?

If all you're doing is "simply regurgitating what I find in the relevant literature" then you're not thinking for yourself.  I, on the other hand, have decided to take it one step further and actually put some thought into what I read and interpret and define it against experiences that I've had in my life and the way I personally think and feel.  But I understand how easy it is to just read something and take it at face value, keeps ya from having to do any real thinking.

Ah, so what you feel and think trumps the findings of scientific literature?  Obviously, your gut feeling regarding raising children must be better than all the research performed in the last 50 years.  Can I give you a call sometime this week so you can tell me how you feel about my research, so I don't have to waste time, effort, and money actually performing the experiments?  I daresay I'm more experienced at digesting and integrating scientific articles into my opinions than yourself.  From this bit, it appears that you don't even understand the concept of a scientific publication.

If you think trying to break down barriers to equality is trite and ignorant, then, well, you've only proved yourself to be those very same things also.  Your post defies logic and has no relevance to this discussion, so if you post any further opinions and skewed perspectives I'm simply going to ignore you and let someone else have at them.  If there is anybody who'd actually like to offer some serious points against allowing gay marriage I'd be more than interested in addressing your points.

Breaking down the barriers to equality?  What barriers?  You still haven't answered my principle question:  why should gays be given benefits for marrying?  Quit blowing smoke up our collective asses and answer this simple question before you try to play your holier-than-thou trump card.  I guess stating preemptively that you'll ignore any contrary opinions is your way of relying on your personal thoughts and feelings rather than actively seeking the truth of the situation.  If that's your approach, feel free to proceed in ignorance.

[CycloWizard]

Now, I'm in marketing. 80% of what I do is collecting information that allows one to make "generalizations" that ring true often enough that you can take them to the bank. So I'm not going to say there hasn't been enough data collected to make a true judgement, I know you can crunch numbers and get a definitive indicator surprisingly quickly. That said, I would actually like to see some documentation that says what you're saying. So please, if it's not too much trouble, I'd appreceate it if you'd produce them.

While I'll certainly look at any numbers collected, I'll also certainly weigh the source. Like it's been said, "Readers Digest" is far from an infallable source. But if you can produce statistics mined by impartial sources, I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Here are a few that I still have links to.  Unfortunately, I just formatted and lost my copies of journal articles (though I might have backed them up on school computers).  I'll post more tomorrow (and address the rest of the post).

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages."
    The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.
    Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Rees (1979) administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to 24 adolescents, half of whom had divorced lesbian and half of whom had divorced heterosexual mothers. The BSRI yields scores on masculinity and femininity as independent factors and an androgyny score from the ratio of masculinity to femininity. Children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ on masculinity or on androgyny, but children of lesbian mothers reported greater psychological femininity than did those of heterosexual mothers. This result would seem to run counter to expectations based on stereotypes of lesbians as lacking in femininity, both in their own demeanor and in their likely influences on children.

Sex role behavior of children was also assessed by Green and his colleagues (1986). In interviews with the children, no differences between 56 children of lesbian and 48 children of heterosexual mothers were found with respect to favorite television programs, favorite television characters, or favorite games or toys. There was some indication in interviews with children themselves that the offspring of lesbian mothers had less sex-typed preferences for activities at school and in their neighborhoods than did children of heterosexual mothers. Consistent with this result, lesbian mothers were also more likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their daughters often participated in rough-and-tumble play or occasionally played with "masculine" toys such as trucks or guns; however, they reported no differences in these areas for sons. Lesbian mothers were no more or less likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their children often played with "feminine" toys such as dolls. In both family types, however, children's sex-role behavior was seen as falling within normal limits.

Some investigators have also raised questions about the potential role of peer support in helping children to deal with issues raised by having a gay or lesbian parent. Lewis (1980) was the first to suggest that children's silence on the topic of parental sexual orientation with peers and siblings might add to their feelings of isolation from other children. All of the 11 adolescents studied by O'Connell (1993) reported exercising selectivity about when they disclosed information about their mothers' lesbian identities. Paul (1986) found that 29% of his young adult respondents had never known anyone else with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent, suggesting that the possibility of isolation is very real for some young people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents. For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 teenagers, half of whom were offspring of lesbian mothers and half of heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant. In a recent study, Bailey and his colleagues (1995) studied adult sons of gay fathers and found more than 90% of the sons to be heterosexual. Because the heterosexual and nonheterosexual sons did not differ in the length of time they had resided with their fathers, the effects of the exposure to the fathers' sexual orientation on the sons' sexual orientation must have been either very small or nonexistent.

[Stinger]

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages."
    The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.
    Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

You're comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual marriages. Do I have to point out that's "Apples and oranges"? I guess I do.

Whilst I'm not going to track down the statistic tonight (On a dial up, visiting relatives), your average heterosexual "relationship", lasts a bit of shit as well, butch. There's a big ass difference between relationships, and tying the knot.

Rees (1979) administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to 24 adolescents, half of whom had divorced lesbian and half of whom had divorced heterosexual mothers. The BSRI yields scores on masculinity and femininity as independent factors and an androgyny score from the ratio of masculinity to femininity. Children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers did not differ on masculinity or on androgyny, but children of lesbian mothers reported greater psychological femininity than did those of heterosexual mothers. This result would seem to run counter to expectations based on stereotypes of lesbians as lacking in femininity, both in their own demeanor and in their likely influences on children.

Sex role behavior of children was also assessed by Green and his colleagues (1986). In interviews with the children, no differences between 56 children of lesbian and 48 children of heterosexual mothers were found with respect to favorite television programs, favorite television characters, or favorite games or toys. There was some indication in interviews with children themselves that the offspring of lesbian mothers had less sex-typed preferences for activities at school and in their neighborhoods than did children of heterosexual mothers. Consistent with this result, lesbian mothers were also more likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their daughters often participated in rough-and-tumble play or occasionally played with "masculine" toys such as trucks or guns; however, they reported no differences in these areas for sons. Lesbian mothers were no more or less likely than heterosexual mothers to report that their children often played with "feminine" toys such as dolls. In both family types, however, children's sex-role behavior was seen as falling within normal limits.

Some investigators have also raised questions about the potential role of peer support in helping children to deal with issues raised by having a gay or lesbian parent. Lewis (1980) was the first to suggest that children's silence on the topic of parental sexual orientation with peers and siblings might add to their feelings of isolation from other children. All of the 11 adolescents studied by O'Connell (1993) reported exercising selectivity about when they disclosed information about their mothers' lesbian identities. Paul (1986) found that 29% of his young adult respondents had never known anyone else with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent, suggesting that the possibility of isolation is very real for some young people.

Blah blah blah, I don't need to quote any more of that to pick it apart. So what your saying here is (Or rather, what this study is saying), that kids of lesbians are going to be more feminine even if they're male... So the fuck what? What about that means "Unfit"? Yes, more kids coming out of homosexual family environments are going to be homosexuals themselves then the number of homosexuals coming from straight parents. That's only a bad thing if you think being gay is a bad thing. Or on a base level, if you think being a feminine heterosexual is a bad thing, since I believe the study implied that the kids turned out STRAIGHT anyway...

What's wrong, Cyclo? Afraid to let your sensitive side out? You cannot use bigotry against others to justify said bigotry. What you have there, is circular logic. You're claiming to be well-read, you do know what that means, don't you? Or do I have to whip out the dictionary again?

You'll notice that the majority of heterosexually raised children are heterosexual. *GASP!* That means that they're more likely to raise heterosexual children! Wow! Scary!

I also notice that the only mention about two gay fathers raising a kid said that very little went wrong there, in their opinions... Kinda funny for many reasons. Guess the statistics weren't as shocking to frightened conservo-america, so they downplayed it in the last paragraph... Which means you had to post shite on only the lesbian side. Which is kinda funny, seeing as how statistically speaking, if you're a computer literate male and over the age of 17, it's 87% likely you've viewed (And enjoyed) lesbian porn.

Tisk tisk, Brutus. Et tu?

[briman]

Ever hear of the song "Blame Canada"......

But seriously though, good for canada, bending to yet another minority group who bitchs and cries about this that and the other thing. Way to be! Fuck the majority, lets bow to the minority!

I am pretty sure that you politically correct whore mongers know that it would never pass in a simple majority vote, which is why you want the elected offcials to do something about it. So instead of throwing a god damn fit, suck up the fact that you are the minority, and you arn't going to get your way. You're acting like that 1 kid in the group who wants to goto Jack in the Box when the 5 other kids want to goto burger king or something, you sit and pout and bitch and moan and are never happy.

Mnem, why arn't you bitching about all of the people in this country that adopt little kids from asia or africa, wouldn't you agree that we have a domestic problem with adoption? Last time I checked, it was YOU who was saying we didn't need to solve the worlds problems. Oh wait, or was that just a reason to not goto war in iraq?

Stinger, you know as well as I do, anyone can make numbers say what they want them to. You know that you can get a set of data, and take only the things you want from it and make some very fancy numbers that look good for you, but only because you left out the things that were bad.

Ruckus, you're a smelly hippie! (I couldnt leave you out buddy!!


CW, as much as you want to, you will never gain any ground in arguing something that these guys don't agree with. If it isn't their opinion, it's wrong. Like I told them earlier in my post, we are the minority, so it doesn't really matter in what we have to say.

Oh, and for all you people that are going to attack the first part of my post about the gay-marriage laws not getting passed, I ask you to give me some form of anything (proof, numbers, things written on the bathroom wall, etc) to show me that a state would pass it by a vote. Because I can show you atleast 12 states that it FOR SURE won't pass. Oh wait....they already banned it!

[Ruckus]

Damn it I'm a Musky smelling hippie who showers and can't but would smoke weed everyday 

So get it right damn it !!! 

[briman]

sorry!

but I never said you were bad smelling! Matter of fact, i kinda like it

[Stinger]

Seriously Briman. Did you just call me politically correct? It's fine to disagree with me and everything, but to call me politically correct... What have you been reading?

"Oh no! Bad Stinger! You can make statistics prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Yes, of course you can pick and choose your statistics. Which is why I didn't just give you a quote, I gave you a link to a 10 page report from a government resource (And who controls the government? It sure as hell ain't us fag-lovers!) with compiled facts (Yes, facts, not just "We hate queers, therefor queers are bad, because we hate them!"), which the only guy in this thread who's actually arguing your side decided not to even address.

Gee, why would someone read and respond to the first two paragraphs, and not the rest... hmm... Maybe because he couldn't figure out how? Maybe? Just a little bit? Sorry man, I gave hard numbers, and actual sources that you can track. You guys gave me two links, one of which flat-out compared two disimilar things (And if you don't think there's a difference between dating someone, and marrying someone, then you need to be forcefully sterilized at gunpoint. Hey look! You think I'm a liberal, and yet I just threatened you with a gun! Oh no! The sky is falling! Grab your tax cuts and small penises and run for the hills!), and the other said, basically, that having two mother figured will make you more feminine...

I mean, for fucks sake, guys, I have never seen anything leading me to believe that feminine is bad in anything but contact sports, and ass fucking. And frankly, there are gay guys who play football quite well, and I can fuck a very hot woman in the ass without it being "gay", so obviously, neither of these things are hard and fast rules.

I love a good debate. Tell me when you guys are ready to start.

[DragonMage]

I love a good debate. Tell me when you guys are ready to start.

You definitely aren't going to find that here.