Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Because I can forcefully argue with words posted does not mean that they are necessarily emotive.
However, your arguments are dishonest and not novel, just novel for somebody who professes some small belief in the LDS Church, at least at the present. Your arguments are more representative of apostates.
Nonetheless, if you're going to accept the unreliable "studies" of the gay community, then you susceptible to accepting their political arguments as well.
As to gay issues, I'm more and more convinced there are no credible evidences, because both sides have axes to grind.
Let's take a look at the fundamental assumptions wrong in those classic gay "studies". These studies are cited by you as evidence that gay unions make some benefit to society. I'd say, even if you buy into the bullshit which these "studies" state, it's more like telling a beginning scube diver, who is supposed to exhale normally as they ascend to the surface but who is actually holding his breath, to only hold his breath for ten seconds at a time, both techniques DON'T work.
First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods. This is supposed to be some major health benefit? Oh wow, spare me if I'm not overly impressed. Gays will be promiscuous during the "dating" stage, may be monogamous for their "union" and be promiscuous thereafter. They spread disease at a rate higher than traditional families.
Second, even if gays want a union, they don't have to call it marriage. And what benefit is their to society for us to give them "marriage" type benefits? There is extra cost.
Nobody, but nobody wants to address the extra burden on society that gays are, as gays. Why?
|
And off we go to the rational world of calling people we disagree with "apostates" and flinging out incomprehensible analogies (what in the world are you talking about with scuba diving?).
I ask you again for your statistics from your "survey."
As for this: "First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods."
At what point did I say monogamy is the norm among all gay males? Your emotional state is making you read arguments that aren't even there. The statistics I provided dealt with monogamy among married homosexuals or those joined in civil unions (a very small percentage of the homosexual community).
Tip for your next post: when attempting to express your standards of self-righteousness, you may want to refrain from cussing; it conveys a sense of hypocrisy. |
Look for you and your type, profanity is the norm, so I'm trying to make you feel at home.
For a young lawyer, you certainly are a know-it-all, seeking to advise the Church. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, but a lot more thought goes into their decision making than yours. You simply parrot what your law professors feed you. I give deference to Church leadership in many of their political decisions, because they have knowledge of the threefold purposes of the Church, better than some whipper snapper of lawyer, who arrogantly finds them to be unwise. An east coast education doesn't make you smarter and wiser than those men, who make mistakes to be certain, but it is doubtful you'd be insightful enough to identify them.
And you argue just to argue. You gave surveys of "gay monogamy" as proof that unions would be of some significant benefit. My point has always been that gayness and gay unions offers no significant benefit to society, so it should not receive legal distinctions.
You have no proof, but a few gay studies that show "monogamous gays" are monogamous. Wow, earthshattering! Not proof of any benefit to society.
To understand the cost of gayness one would have to have statistically valid, and accurate, with proper controls, assessment of gay life from start to finish. The only persons who could do such a mammoth study have a political agenda; thus the probability of receiving a non-skewed study is nigh impossible.
Of course you didn't state gays were most monogamous, but you know what you did; now you make off as if my study chased down a point you never alluded to, which you did. I merely pointed out that your "studies" were fatally flawed and useless.