Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
No.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I answered your question in part throughout this thread, i-dub (remember i-dub?)Originally posted by: ironwing
OP: Am I safe to assume that Proposition 8 really provides you no benefit?
But for you, here's the gist........
#1.) I think that in 2006 this state voted against gay marriage....(i.e. pro hetero marriage)
#2.) I think some judges stepped out of bounds turning that around. (remember 61% of Cali.....oooops........VOTING Californians......voted to protect hetero marriage)
#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
#4.) I have kids being raised in this state whose future I concern myself with, both morally and socioeconomically as well.
Therefore.......I believe that Prop 8 will justify #1, start to ensure that the will of the people of the state of California will not be overturned like in #2 again, protect my state from the potential socioeconomic decline attached to gay marriage and allow my kids to grow up however they will.........(yes, even if either of them turns out to be gay).
Fair enough?
I hear that iran doesn't have any homosexuals. It might be a nice place to raise kids.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I answered your question in part throughout this thread, i-dub (remember i-dub?)Originally posted by: ironwing
OP: Am I safe to assume that Proposition 8 really provides you no benefit?
But for you, here's the gist........
#1.) I think that in 2006 this state voted against gay marriage....(i.e. pro hetero marriage)
#2.) I think some judges stepped out of bounds turning that around. (remember 61% of Cali.....oooops........VOTING Californians......voted to protect hetero marriage)
#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
#4.) I have kids being raised in this state whose future I concern myself with, both morally and socioeconomically as well.
Therefore.......I believe that Prop 8 will justify #1, start to ensure that the will of the people of the state of California will not be overturned like in #2 again, protect my state from the potential socioeconomic decline attached to gay marriage and allow my kids to grow up however they will.........(yes, even if either of them turns out to be gay).
Fair enough?
You need to take a stats 101 course. In order to show a relationship between two variables you need to not only have statistical correlation but a plausible causal mechanism. You have failed to show a plausible causal mechanism. Just because you cite a statistic doesn't mean that it actually helps your argument any. Even if your ridiculous claims turned out to be 100% correct, it still wouldn't matter as increased economic output would be a mighty hard sell for depriving someone of their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I'd just tell them that they can certainly get married, just not here in my home state. (Although, as per bsobel's previous cue, it actually *is* legal *and* recognized in California this very minute)Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think you should have to go around and tell all of these people that they can't get married - and when they as why, you'll have to stand there, slackjawed and try to explain it them.
What would that sound like?
And if I explain to them, (using bsobel's model) that it's "better for the group" if they don't.... based on statistics, then what does that sound like??
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?Originally posted by: bsobel
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
The most ridiculous thing is that they go around spouting a "46%" percent increase in out of wedlock births.Originally posted by: between
the guy in the video seems to be saying:
1) when gay couples are given the right to marry, only a small percentage of them do. The implication being there is no urgency in providing equal rights to gay couples. This isn't even an argument. You don't give or take fundamental rights from people based on whether or not you think they will exercise those rights. The reality is that older gay people have grown up with the expectation they would never be allowed to marry anyway. I think legalisation of gay marriage will probably do more to help young gay people. They won't have to grow up knowing there are certain rights that are not available to them.
2) He seems to be saying that in countries that legalise gay marriage, there are also high levels of "out of wedlock births". I don't think this correlation is surprising. The countries that have legalised gay marriage are renowned for their more liberal social attitudes. In countries where you get liberal social attitudes, you also get more couples living together (and having babies) but not marrying. Basically people in these countries are more likely to see marriage as anachronistic. Decline in popularity of marriage is a trend that was seen in these countries before gay marriage was legalised. The trend isn't caused by gay marriage.
You posted divorce rates from a swedish anti gay group. I'm not asking you to quote a pro gay group, just some unbiased statistics.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?Originally posted by: bsobel
Funny how you couldn't quote any unbiased facts, all of your came from anti-gay groups. Hmm, kinda funny don't ya think?#3.) I believe (via stats) that gay marriage can lead to socioeconomic decline here in California.
The same author in a different article blames that on the pill, condoms, abortions, etc. He's reusing this argument to make his point even tho they arent related.The most ridiculous thing is that they go around spouting a "46%" percent increase in out of wedlock births.
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
NAMBLA is fucking disgusting.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
That's why I used multiple examples. Because where there are lawyers, there is a way!!Originally posted by: bsobel
Aww yes, the fake comparison. You forgot the 'someone will marry their dog'. You need to understand the legal meaning of consent and why minors don't have it. The one thing on your list, polygamy, is a fair comparison. There is little real reason it's illegal in all 50 states.
You laugh now, but first ask yourself how a group like NAMBLA can even EXIST in this country, much less prosper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
http://johncoleman.typepad.com...4/nambla_and_the_.html
Remember.......to NAMBLA, even YOU are a bigot!!!! (unless you're pro-Nambla, which I doubt)
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.Originally posted by: Harvey
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
I would guess I forgot to include < sarcasm > </sarcasm> tags, and the actual facts are irrelevant.Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.Originally posted by: Harvey
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.
I just checked; my meter is past due calibration. I'll get it fixed forthwith.Originally posted by: Harvey
I would guess I forgot to include < sarcasm > </sarcasm> tags, and the actual facts are irrelevant.Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I would guess that, with the advent of surrogate pregnancies and increasing popularity of artificial insemination that the birth rate among gay couples has actually increased.Originally posted by: Harvey
You forgot the good stats. The birth rate among gay couples is at an all time low. :laugh:Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Ah, so now my stats aren't good enough?
Too bad your parents didn't figure out THEY were gay, at least back at a time when it would have done some good.![]()
Another fucking homphobic bigot spews his ignorance and stupidity. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: winnar111
It's a shame the idiots from 2000 didn't make it an amendment then, so these asshat judges could go STFU.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
But anymore it's just a legal contract which most renege on anyway.Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
So do we. To treat others as second-class citizens and harm them for no reason but bigotry. You are an immoral person.Originally posted by: redgtxdi
I know how I'm voting..........
I'm going to vote for equality for others.I hope you're sure there are no consequences to the way you're going to vote.
![]()
Crap, yet again the irony of the week award goes out on the first day, Sunday.Originally posted by: winnar111
It's a shame the idiots from 2000 didn't make it an amendment then, so these asshat judges could go STFU.