Who doesn't back gay marriage?

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

"toEing the company line" not "towing". sheesh.

Oh my bad... I didn't realize we were in english class. Since we are...

You should have stated:
The phrase is "toeing the company line", not "towing". Sheesh.

Rather than use a fragment, forget your comma and forget your capitalization.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Regardless... you ask why would this be an argument against homosexual marriage. Because when you give them the right to marriage they also receive the right to adopt children...

Then you're still aiming at the wrong target. You should be arguing against the law that allows gay couples to adopt, not against gay marriage. Would you have no problem with a gay couple that wanted to marry and that promised never to have or adopt any children?

Shadow X wrote:

Now that's just one of the arguments against homosexual marriage.

And it's a pretty weak one.

Shadow X wrote:

The main reason you don't allow homosexual marriage is economic in nature.

Explain.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

It's not the wrong target because the homosexuals will never give up that ability as being part of marriage. Where I live we have laws that prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. I don't have to fight against the law allowing adoption. However, if they force us to allow homosexuals to marry then adoption of children would come along with it. That's unacceptable.

And I already posted the economic part earlier... I'll go find it again.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

It's not the wrong target because the homosexuals will never give up that ability as being part of marriage.

Well, if you don't fight hard enough they won't.

But you're still OK with gay couples who promise never to have or adopt any children, right?

Shadow X wrote:

Where I live we have laws that prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. I don't have to fight against the law allowing adoption. However, if they force us to allow homosexuals to marry then adoption of children would come along with it. That's unacceptable.

You're admitting that you've already lost the fight before you even begin. Sounds like loser talk to me.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

So. If 27% of the victims under age 12 are male, that means out of 1000 victims, we have 270 males that were victimized. Of those males 94% of them were sexually assaulted by males. Which 270*.94 = 253.8 or 254.

Wow! Talk about completely misusing the statistics.

Quote:

Female offenders were
most common in assaults against victims under age 6. For
these youngest victims, 12% of offenders were females,
compared with 6% for victims ages 6 through 12,

Your 6% figure assumes no male children under the age of 6 were molested at all. Either that or you included the 12-17 yr olds.

Then you fail to account for the following:

For male victims under 12, 40% were victimized by family members.

For those victims under 12, 40% were victimized by juveniles.

Quote:

17.6% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

Do you disagree with those numbers and that conclusion? If so, on what grounds?

I disagree because your math sucks. You pull numbers out of the air and multiply them by other numbers to reach conclusions that you can't logically make.

Since 40% of sexual predators that attack children are themselves children who can't marry, how does that relate to your gay marriage argument.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Quote:

Well I mean if you'll accept the 27%... I'll be happy to go with that.

I won't accept that and be happy with it.
27% were male but 40% were molested by other children and between 6-13% were molested by females.

Quote:

The reason it's not acceptable is because you do not give a group of people that you know are much more likely to be child predators unfettered access to children.

That is an interesting argument. Since 47% of child predators that attack females under 12 are family members, does that mean the government should prevent traditional families from living together?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Explain.

It has been explained. A Marxist plot is entirely an economic proposition. Does the idea scare you?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Wow! Talk about completely misusing the statistics.

It's not misusing the statistics just because you don't like waht they say.

Quote:

Female offenders were
most common in assaults against victims under age 6. For
these youngest victims, 12% of offenders were females,
compared with 6% for victims ages 6 through 12,

Your 6% figure assumes no male children under the age of 6 were molested at all. Either that or you included the 12-17 yr olds.

Fair enough. No argument there. Let's adjust the numbers accordingly.
Page2: 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12. Most disturbing is that one of every seven victims of sexual assault (or 14% of all victims) reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.

So out of 1000 victims, 140 of them are under age 6.
Of those 140 victims 12% of them were assaulted by females. 140*.12=16.8 or 17.
In that source it shows 34% of victims were under age 12, 14% of which were under age 6. That leaves 20% between 6-12. 1000*.2=200 victims agest 6-12. Of those 200 victims, 6% were assaulted by females. 200*.06=12. So we have 29 out of 340 children that were assaulted by females. That makes it 29/340=8.5%

So instead of those numbers being multiplied by 94% they should be multiplied by 91.5. Agreed?

The quote you originally put into your post should state:
If 27% of victimes under age 12 are male, that means out of 1000 victims, we have 270 males that were victimized. Of those males, 91.5% of them were sexually assaulted by maes. Which 270*91.5 = 247.05 or 247.

Out of 247 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 247*.69 = 170.43 or 170. So we have at LEAST 170 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18. I'll even say that all 77 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 171 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18... Leaving 171/1000 = 17.1%

17.1% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

Do you still dispute this? If so, on what grounds?

As far as this:

Quote:

For male victims under 12, 40% were victimized by family members.

For those victims under 12, 40% were victimized by juveniles.

What does it matter whether the person engaging in homosexual behavior was a family member or not? I'm not sure how you're attempting to argue that's relevant. The same is true for whether or not they were victimized by juveniles. The only thing that means is that the juveniles engaging in unwanted homosexual behavior with another child only makes for one sick homosexual with a long life ahead of him to engage in his deviant behavior. The age or relationship of the offender is really quite irrelevant.

My argument is that those who engage in homosexual behavior are much more likely to be child molestors than those who do not. Just because they're juveniles doesn't mean they're going to stop when they reach adulthood lol

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I won't accept that and be happy with it.
27% were male but 40% were molested by other children and between 6-13% were molested by females.

I'm not sure where you get 13%. Maybe you should try to actually do a little math. It comes out to be 8.5% of children under 12 are molested by women as I just showed. Just because some offenders were juveniles when the disease started to manifest itself in their lives, doesn't take away from the fact that engaging in homosxual behavior is simply a symptom of that disease.

Quote:

Since 47% of child predators that attack females under 12 are family members, does that mean the government should prevent traditional families from living together?

The problem with your argument is that heterosexuals represent approximately 95% of the population. So your 47% number is FAR underrepresented as far as heterosexuals are concerned. Whereas the % of child molestors who engage in homosexual behavior far exceeds the % of that same group in the total population.

When you can show that heterosexuals are overrepresented 3+times like those who engage in homosexuality are... you might have an argument.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Shadow X wrote:

The main reason you don't allow homosexual marriage is economic in nature.

Explain.

Another reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

First of all, i do not believe in any subsidies. I dont think we should be paying married couples anything. The gov should not appropriate money feom one group to support another group. If you are going to do so however you better have a damn good reason for doing so. So why are we giving money to married couples? We do so because it provides an environment that is conducive to the creation of children or revenue streams for society.

Now I'd like to point out why Heteros get those benefits that homosexuals should not. Lets take two couples. We will call them Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits. To make the numbers easy to understand... Lets say BOTH couples take out $200,000 in marriage benefits and they both put in $100,000 in taxes. That means BOTH Hetero and Homo couple are net negative $100,000. The difference is that Homo couple is incapable of reproduction in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream ends as being net negative. Now Hetero couple is net neg $100,000 as well however they produced 4 children. Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Now to head off a few issues that will likely be brought up. First gay couples can adopt. Of course they can. But we are not paying for the RAISING of the revenue stream, we are paying for the CREATION of those revenue streams. Anyone can raise a child, straight or gay or single parent or a grandparent... Hell even wolves and monkeys have shown they are capable of raising a child to adulthood. But the ONLY relationship that is capable of CREATING human children is the heterosexual relationship. Another thing, history has shown unequivocally that once the child or revenue stream is created that over time (even if one is a sociopath) the revenue stream will be overall beneficial to the economy.

Now why do we provide benefits to sterile couples or to really old people who get married? We do so because it is costly, inefficient sand ultimately ineffective to test every couple to see if they're sterile or have become sterile every year or if they're just choosing not to have children. It is not economically feasible to test. So we choose to provide the entire group (heterosexual married couples) for the POTENTIAL of child creation. A potential that homosexuals in and of themselves do not provide. Therefore they do not qualify.

If you feel as though sterile or old couples or anyone else who receives benefits should not have them, that is fine and perfectly understandable. However, with that being said, you ONLY have a legitimate argument as to why certain heterosexual groups should not receive those benefits but you absolutely no legitimate argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive those benefits.

1 Reply

The vast majority of those who are paedophiles are male. Therefore males should be forbidden to marry or live in family units, because they are far more likely than females to engage in paedophilia. Therefore the familial structure should consist solely of a single mother and her children. And men should be kept in internment camps far from any possible interaction with children. That's what the statistics clearly show. I'm sure Shadow X will agree.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Well a couple of things. First of all, males are only overrepresented in the reported sexual assault statistics by, AT MOST, two times more than what they represent in the total population. Whereas homosexuals are overrepresented by somewhere between 3-10x more than they represent in the total population.

Also I'd like to point out (as I did earlier in this thread) that most sexual assaults on males are not reported... especially when the offender is a female. So the number is undoubtedly higher for female offenders. Though, even if you take the statistics at face value, it's not reasonable to break up couples, destroy families and segregate an entire population away from children. It is reasonable to not allow a group that is 3-10x more likely to be child molestors the right to adopt.

However, as I said before, this is only a supporting point as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. The position is not contingent solely upon this argument.

0 Replies

re Shadow X
Your math, as far as it can be deciphered, seems to postulate that each victim fell afoul of a different unique perpetrator, i.e. for every victim, someone not connected to any other victim was the perpetrator. This is not the case.

Quote:

Male offenders who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each.
Men who molested boys had an astonishing average of 150 victims each.
Only 3% of these crimes had ever been detected.

In other words, conservatively speaking, you're overstating the case by 100 TIMES. Not by 100 PERCENT, which would be only double, but by 100 TIMES. Your thesis is loopy. But then we knew that.

http://www.childluresprevention.com/research/profile.asp

1 Reply

Quote:

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

me

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

That's incorrect. Go back and look at the numbers. They are adjusted for how many cases were solo victims as opposed to multiple victims. Try again.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

BOTH couples will take more out of the system in the form of marriage benefits than they put into the system to help pay for those benefits.

Where's your evidence for that assertion?

Shadow X wrote:

Two of those children got married and two did not. The two that did not get married pay $50,000 into the system making up for the $100,000 that their parents were in the whole. The other two children get married and have more children and so on and so forth. That revenue stream that was created by the heterosexuals could theoretically be worth trillions of dollars to society and last for thousands of years. THAT is why we provide benefits.

Let me get this straight: the only people who are actually paying into the system are single people, right? How is that possible, given that, throughout history, married people vastly outnumbered single people?

In any event, you are still aiming at the wrong target. Your hypothetical is merely an argument against all marriage, not against gay marriage. After all, if society benefits more from single people than married people, the obvious solution is to ban marriage for everyone, not just homosexuals.

Shadow X wrote:

Now why do we provide benefits to sterile couples or to really old people who get married? We do so because it is costly, inefficient sand ultimately ineffective to test every couple to see if they're sterile or have become sterile every year or if they're just choosing not to have children.

Fertility testing is not the only way to solve this problem. A better alternative is simply to have every couple post a bond prior to getting married. The bond is in an amount that would reimburse society for any revenue it would lose in the event the couple does not have any children, and the bond is refunded to the couple if they have a child. In that scenario, infertile couples (including gay couples) would simply not marry, or else they'd marry but the economic effect on society would be neutral rather than a net loss.

That would be a far better solution to the problem you've identified, wouldn't you agree?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Where's your evidence for that assertion?[

It's really quite simple. Only a minute percentage of your taxes goes towards paying for marriage benefits, the rest of it goes towards paying for property taxes, roads, upkeep of government buildings, etc etc etc.

Just receiving one benefit of marriage alone would cost more than that. Here's a short list of marriage benefits, all of which would cost more than the taxes one pays that goes towards paying for those marriage benefits.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Quote:

et me get this straight: the only people who are actually paying into the system are single people, right? How is that possible, given that, throughout history, married people vastly outnumbered single people?

First of all, married people do not vastly outnumber single people. Just over 50% of the population are married. Second, you're ALMOST getting the point. You see marriage could not sustain itself if the single people didn't pay into the system. But you see, the only way to produce those single people is for heterosexual couples to reproduce. That's why homosexuals cannot receive marriage benefits. Because they are simply taking from the system and are not producing enough to pay for those benefits (just like almost all married couples) but then they're incapable of reproduction in and of themselves, so they don't provide the benefit of producing single people to help pay for what they take out.

Society benefits from the heterosexual married couples CREATING those single people. Society has found it is more beneficial to promote the idea of procreation through marriage than it is to simply let people procreate of their own accord. That helps society by creating an environment where more revenue streams are created which society needs to function properly and grow.

As I said originally... I don't believe in subsidies at all. So taking away all marriage benefits wouldn't hurt my problem, but as I said in the original statement... You may argue that some portions, or all, heterosexual marriages should not receive benefits. I wouldn't have an argument with that. However, you have no argument WHATSOEVER as to why homosexuals SHOULD receive those benefits.

Quote:

Fertility testing is not the only way to solve this problem. A better alternative is simply to have every couple post a bond prior to getting married. The bond is in an amount that would reimburse society for any revenue it would lose in the event the couple does not have any children, and the bond is refunded to the couple if they have a child. In that scenario, infertile couples (including gay couples) would simply not marry, or else they'd marry but the economic effect on society would be neutral rather than a net loss.

That would be a far better solution to the problem you've identified, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely not because then you're only allowing rich people to get married... or more specifically you wouldn't allow poor people to get married. That would defeat the whole purpose as the vast majority of children created are not created by the rich, but by the poor who then BECOME rich through hard work and discipline.

If you're going to provide marriage benefits, it should be for anyone who has the potential of child production with thier spouse. Since testing is too costly and requiring a bond would be too costly for many couples (especially a bond that would make up for what they take out of the system), the only logical answer is to provide those benefits to those couples engaged in the heterosexual paradigm... or not to provide them to anyone. But if you're going to steal money out of peoples pockets and put it back in someone elses, you better have a damn good reason for doing so... and porking your buddy in the butthole is not one.

I don't want anyone taking money out of anyone elses pocket for any reason whatsoever. However, if you're going to take money out of my pocket, at least you better have a good reason. Procreation and the sustaining of our society and culture is at least a solid reason. Wanting me to give you money because you want to live with your buddy for the rest of your life and have gay sex cause you claim you love each other is not good enough reason to steal money out of my pocket. I hate it for them... I'm sorry it's just not a good enough reason.

1 Reply

@Shadow X,

Shadow X wrote:

Quote:
Where's your evidence for that assertion?[

Blah blah blah

No, really: where's your evidence for that assertion.

Shadow X wrote:

First of all, married people do not vastly outnumber single people.

I said that married people vastly outnumbered single people throughout history. The trend toward a balance between married and unmarried people is a recent phenomenon. On the other hand, this massive tax giveaway to married people presumably is not. According to your reasoning, therefore, the US should have gone bankrupt decades ago.

Shadow X wrote:

Society benefits from the heterosexual married couples CREATING those single people.

You are aware that reproduction is not contingent on marriage, right? If you want, I can explain to you how that process works.

Shadow X wrote:

Absolutely not because then you're only allowing rich people to get married... or more specifically you wouldn't allow poor people to get married. That would defeat the whole purpose as the vast majority of children created are not created by the rich, but by the poor who then BECOME rich through hard work and discipline.

Again, I feel I need to emphasize the fact that reproduction is not contingent on marriage. But if you're worried about poor folks, a simple waiver system could be instituted for their benefit. There. Problem solved.

Shadow X wrote:

the only logical answer is to provide those benefits to those couples engaged in the heterosexual paradigm... or not to provide them to anyone.

Then your beef is with marriage, not with gay marriage.

2 Replies

For sheer loopiness, Shadow X is right up there with the best. His contention is that, since gay kids commit suicide something like 5 or six times more freuqently than fat kids, it means that gays are emotionalloy weak, as compared with, say, the bullies who torment them, who are strong. No, no, Shadow, it's Darwinian natural selection at work, culling the herd. Obviously those gays who survive to adulthood are far stronger emotionally than those like you, who coast through life as the bullies or the abetters of social pressure on gay kids. Those adult gays, then, are clearly far more deserving of the right to marry, if you think emotional strength should be one of the underpinnings of marriage. They have been tested, Shadow, and have come thru. You have not.

0 Replies

@Shadow X,

Quote:

It's not misusing the statistics just because you don't like waht they say.

I have no problem with the statistics. I have a problem with your attempt to make them say things they don't. The assumptions for your math often go against the statistics. And your math in general sucks.

Quote:

So out of 1000 victims, 140 of them are under age 6.
Of those 140 victims 12% of them were assaulted by females. 140*.12=16.8 or 17.
In that source it shows 34% of victims were under age 12, 14% of which were under age 6. That leaves 20% between 6-12. 1000*.2=200 victims agest 6-12. Of those 200 victims, 6% were assaulted by females. 200*.06=12. So we have 29 out of 340 children that were assaulted by females. That makes it 29/340=8.5%

Let's look at your assumptions here and compare them to the actual statistics.
You assume that females and males assault in the same percentages for each gender. A ridiculous assumption that isn't supported by anything. One could as easily assume that females only assault males. Which would require you to subtract the male victims from your total rather than using a percentage.

You fail to use the actual victim gender statistics for the age groups. For under 6, 30% of victims were male and 12 % of offenders were female. For 6-11, 25% of the victims were male and 6% of offenders were female. That shows a correlation between female offenders and male victims, a higher percentage of female offenders means more male victims. If we assume females only offend against males we end up with an interesting correlation. 18% of under 6 are male victims with a male offender and 19% of 6-11 are male victims with a male offender. But let's get that to your attempt at a number.

Quote:

If 27% of victimes under age 12 are male, that means out of 1000 victims, we have 270 males that were victimized. Of those males, 91.5% of them were sexually assaulted by maes. Which 270*91.5 = 247.05 or 247.

The simple fact of the matter is you made an assumption that females offend more often against females. In other words you are making an assumption and then using your assumption to prove your assumption correct. Circular reasoning on your part.

Quote:

Out of 247 male victims who were assaulted by males, 69% of them were assaulted alone. 247*.69 = 170.43 or 170. So we have at LEAST 170 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18. I'll even say that all 77 males that are left were assaulted by one guy. So we have 171 cases out of 1000 where a male sexually assaulted another male under the age of 18... Leaving 171/1000 = 17.1%

This makes no sense at all. There is no way you can reach a conclusion based on what you have presented. "Alone" only means the offender and the victim were alone. The 77 cases that are left were the result of a group and can in no way be "one guy." Because there were group offenses and repeat offenses, you can't make any conclusions because there is no data. Your assumption is nothing but a wild guess meant to further your agenda.

Quote:

17.1% of the total child molestations being males engaged in homosexual activities with another male who was under the age of 12.

Do you still dispute this? If so, on what grounds?

On the grounds that you make assumptions not supported by the data.

40% of the child molestations were by other children. While those children were most likely male to claim there were homosexual encounters is ridiculous. I wouldn't classify children fondling other children as a homosexual activity.

Quote:

What does it matter whether the person engaging in homosexual behavior was a family member or not?

What does it matter? Didn't you try to argue that it DID matter and that is why gays shouldn't have children? Are you now dismissing your own argument as being something that doesn't matter?

1 Reply

Who doesn't back gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know