Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_Who Knows]

Can someone help explain how any of this is relevant to the gay marriage 'debate'. (and I put 'debate' in quotes as there really is no reason for debate, outside of a religious context. In other words, there is no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, other than a religious one - for some).

Sure. Besides the fact that there has never been a compelling reason for gay marriage, such a lifestyle adds significant additional risk to the relationship, society, and any children that might be unfortunate enough to be in the way.

Besides the fact that there is no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marriage (other than a religious one in some minds), can you explain how the act of marriage between gays does this?

And then please tie this into your view that the only compelling reason for getting married in the first place, is because 2 people can biologically have children together.

And then please explain the rationale for other legal issues that add additional risk to society.

[_bcspace]

Besides the fact that there is no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marriage (other than a religious one in some minds),

The fallacy here is that no one is denying any gays marriage. There is however, no reason for the state to legitimize such marriages in law. Reasons have been given, but they have not been compelling to the state.

can you explain how the act of marriage between gays does this?

The homosexual lifestyle brings the added risks of abuse of all kinds, death (including murder), disease, suicide, drug abuse, mental health problems etc. not to mention the missing male and female role models for children.

The case also has not been made that homosexuality is inborn or genetic (and it wouldn't matter if it were).

And then please tie this into your view that the only compelling reason for getting married in the first place, is because 2 people can biologically have children together.

That is not my view. Feel free to quote me and show why you think that is my view.

[_guy sajer]

Actually I do. But I've done all the leg work so far. Considering the grandiose claims of erudition going around, the proof must be left to you, the student.

Frankly, I doubt it. If you understood this, you wouldn't have quoted the statistic without offering contextual information to help readers interpret and understand it, as ANY good researcher would do.

Considering the most unscholarly fashion with which you all have treated references so far, it is not unreasonable to make you find some of your own especially since you are so sure that I am wrong. In fact, I think that since most of you are so invested in supporting the homosexual lifestyle choice, you have to cling to straws to save yourselves from any real discussion of the issues.

Jesus Hermione Christ, you just plug steadfastly ahead, totally oblivious and totally clueless.

Ah! Then you must have a reference.....somewhere. lol

Hey numbnuts, a couple of things:

1. I have no interest in supporting the homosexual lifestyle in this thread. I believe the health effects of homosexuality is an empirical question and ought to be addressed via valid scientific methods, not by biased, anecdotal polemics by homphobic fundie proctologists. The issues of whether homosexuality is "moral" and what's it health implications are are two completely separate questions, though I suspect strongly that you, and the fundies, would like to argue something like "fruit of their sins." I have no prior desire to find no health effects of homosexuality. If they exist, we should identify them and address them, but they say NOTHING about the morality of homosexuality.
2. Your research methods suck big time. That is the substance of all my replies. You make no effort to get a non-biased overview of the credible scientific research, yet you claim others do lazy research.

My problem is not with your conclusion, per se, but the evidence you've used to support it AND the rationale behind it (I suspect your belong to the "fruit of their sins" camp, which I find a morally deplorable position.

To help you out, I did an on-line search at a research library to which I have access. I typed in "lesbian health" and here's what I found in terms of the number of articles related to this topic (not all will be directly or indirectly relevant, in fact, most won't), but it requires one to wade through them and see.

4 Alt-Health Watch (EBSCO)
66 Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition (EBSCO)
545 Web of Science (ISI)
184 Academic Search Premier (EBSCO

Now, here's the very first citation I found, which actually supports your argument; it is a sight bit more credible than your fundie, homophobic proctologist, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal.

1. Women Who Report Having Sex With Women: British National Probability Data on Prevalence, Sexual Behaviors, and Health Outcomes.
Author: Mercer, Catherine H.; Bailey, Julia V.; Johnson, Anne M.; Erens, Bob; Wellings, Kaye; Fenton, Kevin A.; Copas, Andrew J.
Journal: American Journal of Public Health
Pub.: 2007-06
Volume: 97
Issue: 6
Pages: 1126(8)
ISSN: 00900036
Subject: ABORTION; DRINKING of alcoholic beverages; INTERVIEWS; LESBIANS -- Health & hygiene; PUBLIC health -- Research; SEXUALLY transmitted diseases -- Risk factors; WOMEN -- Sexual behavior; SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC factors; UNSAFE sex; GREAT Britain
Description: Language : English Reading Level (Lexile): 1580 AN : 25302445 Objectives. We estimated the prevalence of same-sex experience among women and compared women reporting sex with women and men and women reporting sex exclusively with women with women reporting sex exclusively with men, in terms of sociodemographics and sexual, reproductive, and general health risk behaviors and outcomes. Methods. We used a British probability survey (n = 6399 women, aged 16 to 44 years) conducted from 1999 to 2001 with face-to-face interviewing and computer-assisted self-interviewing. Results. We found that 4.9% of the women reported same-sex partner(s) ever; 2.8% reported sex with women in the past 5 years (n = 178); 85.0% of these women also reported male partner(s) in this time. Compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men, women who reported sex with women and men reported significantly greater male partner numbers, unsafe sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, and intravenous drug use and had an increased likelihood of induced abortion and sexually transmitted infection diagnoses (age-adjusted odds ratios=3.07 and 4.41, respectively). Conclusions, For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. A nonjudgmental review of female patients' sexual history should help practitioners discuss risks that women may face. (Am J Public Health. 2007;97:1126-1133. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.086439)

I don't have time to do more.

So, now I've demonstrated that both your claims made about me above are false.

You still do s****y research.

[_asbestosman]

You still do s****y research.

Isn't that what proctology is all about?

[_bcspace]

Hey numbnuts, a couple of things:

\

Ah! The signs of scholarship!

1. I have no interest in supporting the homosexual lifestyle in this thread. I believe the health effects of homosexuality is an empirical question and ought to be addressed via valid scientific methods, not by biased, anecdotal polemics by homphobic fundie proctologists.

Agreed. I have quoted none such.

The issues of whether homosexuality is "moral" and what's it health implications are are two completely separate questions, though I suspect strongly that you, and the fundies, would like to argue something like "fruit of their sins." I have no prior desire to find no health effects of homosexuality. If they exist, we should identify them and address them, but they say NOTHING about the morality of homosexuality.

I don't think I've come from a position of morality yet on this thread, unless of course you believe as I do that all legislation is legislated morality.

My problem is not with your conclusion, per se, but the evidence you've used to support it AND the rationale behind it

Feel free to show me where you think I am wrong.

(I suspect your belong to the "fruit of their sins" camp, which I find a morally deplorable position.

I thought you didn't want to bring morality into this. But since you did, I must say that I find you repulsively in violation of Romans 1:32.

Now, here's the very first citation I found, which actually supports your argument; it is a sight bit more credible than your fundie, homophobic proctologist, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal.

I gave dozens of references at the same time as the one to which you are refering which were ignored.

Conclusions, For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men. A nonjudgmental review of female patients' sexual history should help practitioners discuss risks that women may face. (Am J Public Health. 2007;97:1126-1133. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.086439)

I like it. Thanks for the reference. See? That wasn't so hard.

Like I said before. I gave my weakest reference first, which happened to be the good doctor. No one's been able to show that he is some sort of 'fundie' by the way, they simply have ass-u-me-d guilt by association because he was quoted in a 'fundie' work. And then someone tried to counter that (probably because they were afraid to tackle the other references) with an article by a gay activist with no scientific background at all (as opposed to the doctor who has a degree in medicine).

So overall, those who have tried to counter my arguments so far are all guilty of this same lazy, crappy research you speak of. But you are the first be brave to take a step into the real world of scholarship. Congratulations!

[_KimberlyAnn]

You still do s****y research.

Isn't that what proctology is all about?

S****y research? It's the kind of research assholes do best.

KA

[_bcspace]

You still do s****y research.

Isn't that what proctology is all about?

S****y research? It's the kind of research assholes do best.

Keep it comming. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to expose you to a wider (and lurking) audience and show them what kind of people you really are. In other words, you are simply a prop. I must say the exposure has been beyond indecent.....lol

[_skippy the dead]

You still do s****y research.

You'll note he has not refuted my suspicions that the research is not even his own. As I've mentioned twice before, I suspect that it's pre-canned "research" that was prepared by an anti-gay group, and I further suspect bcspace has read through the source documents (as opposed to summaries) himself.

[_guy sajer]

But since you did, I must say that I find you repulsively in violation of Romans 1:32.

Cool, thanks.

For the record, I find you to be a pretentious prick with a vastly overinflated opinion of himself, a lousy researcher, a flaming hypocrite who doesn't live up to the standards he demands of others, and a morally deficient homophobe.

A real researcher doesn't decide the issue before doing the research. I doubt seriously that's true of you. A fudie-type religious world view pre-determined your position on this issue, and you cherry picked the evidence to support your already reached conclusion (and yes, I'd bet all the $$ I have that the good proctologist is a evangelical homophobe with an agenda, much like you).

The article I cited is not the last word on the issue (though I suspect you'll trumpet it as such). Now, here's your final lesson on doing research: A good researcher looks to the "preponderance of evidence" before deciding the matter. A single study rarely decides the issue, there are almost certainly counter arguments and contrary evidence.

I'd love to see you try to navigate the peer review process. You'd be crucified.

[_bcspace]

You still do s****y research.

You'll note he has not refuted my suspicions that the research is not even his own.

If it's surety you crave, I give none unless you can abide the CFR.

As I've mentioned twice before, I suspect that it's pre-canned "research" that was prepared by an anti-gay group,

And I suspect that your inability to find any counter references is evidenced here by your fear and paranoia

and I further suspect bcspace has read through the source documents (as opposed to summaries) himself.

Indeed I have read through many of the source documents. It's part of the reason I believe as I do. I am a great admirer of science.