It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Gays be allowed to marry?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:48 AM
link   
"The 'real' data is only about 2-5% but with low numbers like that the Gay support would drop markedly, as they are a smaller voting part and power block than previously thought, so the 10% fallacy is still widely reported.. "

I think you need to point us in the direction of the "real" data and who has produced it before many of us will accept that.




posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:56 AM
link   
No problem Lupe its been widely reported for years...

www.newdirection.ca...
Alfred Kinsey's research in the late 1940's gave us the 10% figure which has been so widely used in terms of homosexuality.

In fact, many people and many written materials continue to use 10% as the percentage of the population that is gay or lesbian. There are, however, two solid reasons to stop using 10%:

Kinsey's research methods have been seriously questioned:

A primary concern is that the people whom he surveyed did not represent the general population. Many of them were or had been prisoners; many were also sex offenders.

Recent studies have found significantly lower numbers, usually ranging between 1- 4%:
Here is a sampling of these newer studies:

A study of 5,514 Canadian college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual. (King et al., 1988).

A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." (Johnson et al., 1992).

A French study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime. (ANRS, 1992).

A Danish random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse). (Melbye, 1992).

The National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." (Dawson, Hardy, 1990-1992)

In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. (Sundet et al., 1988).

The serious problems with Kinsey's work combined with these new studies give us clear reason to stop using the 10% figure.



zillions more articles here...
www.google.com...

[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Thats an interesting article but it does happen to come from a christian web site concerned wich is (to quote from their front page):

"A pro-people organization
offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality,
and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately."

I cant really accept their opinion without considering them somewhat biassed.

I think I'd need a more objective source.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Don't give me that crap Lupe, there were many more sources than that and the STATISTICS THEMSELVES speak for the truth. I found the info out years ago from non christian sources in the 80's it was a major debating point.

If you don't want to believe it becase you don't want to face the data then say so, but don't hide behind the anti-chrisitan facade.

Christians didn't make all those international surveys...


BTW here are the references to the info above ... look at the sources, not entirely christian at all...

ANRS: Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida investigators (1992). AIDS and sexual behavior in France. Nature, 360(3), Dec. 3, 1992, 407-409.

Billy, J.O.G. et al. (1993). The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(2), 52-59.

Billy, J.O.G. et al. (1993). Reply to Stokes & McKirnan (1993). Family Planning Perspectives, 25(2), 185-186.

Cole, W. & Gorman, C. (1993). The shrinking ten percent. Time, April 26, 33-35.

Dawson, D. & Hardy, A.M. (1990-1992). National Centre for Health Statistics, Centres for Disease Control, Advance Data, 204, 1990-1992.

Diamond, Milton (1993). Homosexuality and bisexuality in different populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(4), 291-310. Discusses the design of studies which attempt to measure sexual orientation.

Johnson, A.M. et al. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360(3), Dec. 3, 1992, 410- 412.

King et al. (1988). Canada, Youth and AIDS Study. Kingston, ON: Queen's University.

Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B. & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders.

Melbye, M. & Biggar, R.J. (1992). Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark. American Journal of Epidemiology, 135(6), 593-602.

Muir, J.G. (1993). Homosexuals and the 10% fallacy. The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993, A-14.

Reisman, J.A. & Eichel, E.W. (1990). Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: the indoctrination of a people, an investigation into the human sexuality research of Alfred C. Kinsey (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House, 1990).

Reisman, J.A. (1996). Kinsey and the homosexual revolution. The Journal of Human Sexuality on the web (off-site link) and on paper by Lewis and Stanley, 21-28. [Judge this journal by its contents, not by the fact that it is a non-peer-reviewed, one-time publication]. Return to text.

Seidman, S.N. & Reider, R.O. (1994). A review of sexual behavior in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(3), 330-341.

Sonenstein, F.L. et al. (1989). Sexual activity, condom use and AIDS awareness among adolescent males. Family Planning Perspectives, 21(4), 152-158.

Stokes, J.P. & McKirnan, D.J. (1993). Reply to The sexual behavior of men in the United States (Billy et al, 1993). Family Planning Perspectives, 25(4), 184-185.

Sundet, J.M., et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53-60.
Wildavsky, R. (1997).

Sex, lies and the Kinsey reports. Reader's Digest, April 1997.

[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:14 AM
link   
"I found the info out years ago from non christian sources in the 80's it was a major debating point."

thats great. all I'm asking is that you post it.
Kinsey is considered an objective source by way of his profession, a christian web site is not by way of its theology.

Post up an objective rbuttal of Kinsey and follow it up with an equally valid survey of your own and you'll have a good case.

Direct a psychologist to a chritian website in order to prove the subjectivity of another psychologist and said psychologist is just going to laugh.

Not attacking you, just interested, please post your source.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Here is another article for you...

www.leaderu.com...
from here..
The Journal of Human Sexuality

Kinsey is a powerful example of one's personal orientation affecting one's science and the moral shape of society.

What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual? Quite possibly, it amounts to Kinsey's wishful thinking, which he quantified in order to recreate others in his own distorted image.

Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?

In the past, science fraud has taken place for economic and political reasons-but with Kinsey, was his "science" rather the outgrowth of personal morality and sexual proclivity?

If that were true, he has certainly not been the last. In recent years, the world has seen other "men of science" (Hamer, LeVay, Pillard et al) whose work lacks objectivity and who seem to be justifying their own lives with their [questionable] findings. Were these scientists making claims about beetles, fauna or supernovae, there would be less cause for alarm; however, the travesty is that-in a culture in which science is the preferred religion (a no-fault religion) and scientists its high priests-these men's words are being received as "gospel" (no matter how little factual basis they have) on a subject as important and wide- sweeping as human sexuality.

Unfortunately, the scientific world and the western world at large has all too eagerly embraced Kinsey's work.

No matter what Kinsey's own sexual orientation, scientists and laypersons alike must acknowledge that he engineered a study of child sexuality which was unthinkable.

The Kinsey Institute's data on child orgasms are, at best, a human concoction or, at worst, the results of child molestation.

In either case, the Kinsey Institute is guilty of criminal activity and their findings on all subjects are suspect and misleading. Too, science must be re-evaluated, for Kinsey's work has hijacked an entire body of science for almost half a century, leaving behind untold damage to families, relationships and human souls.

The control of sexuality information has for too long been in the hands of the Kinsey elite-unethical scientists, men without moral conscience or honor, who fathered a bastard sexual revolution.

It should come as no surprise then to those on our campuses and in the halls of legislative, judicial and educational power, that as our nation has followed Kinsey and his disciples, we too have become increasingly coarsened to conscience and honor.

It is clear that sexual aggression, brutality and hedonism have greater sway in our society post-Kinsey than was the case pre-Kinsey.



[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Lupe...

Most "learned" people have long since droped the Kinsey data in favor of mid-to-low single digit percentages long ago.

Is this the current state of this thread, arguing over pointless minutae? For what purpose Lupe?



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Its not an argument William, an argument requires 2 sides, Lupe is just in denial...

But it matters a lot ... 10% is a big power block, and the attraction of the Gay lobby has influenced many political decisions.

If suddenly that post ejaculated down to 4% then suddenly the gay lobby is a non entity. Then issues like we have been disgussing are non issues, and society realisies that it isn't becoming 'gayified.

Notice that gay parades worldwide are being cancelled, sexual politics is fading back into the woodwork..

[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Right...

To me, sexuality is a non-issue as I'm sure you know. Kinsey's 10% is an outrageously high number for anyone who spends time in society, and follow-up research has shown this over and over.

That's why it's odd to me that anyone would try to keep discussing it.

The "gay lobby" has a few valid points. Some issues are good ones (it's hard enough to find a life partner you care about, who cares if it's same-sex), some are pointless attempts at attention-getting. But then, that's the same deal as pretty much any special interest group.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Most learned people have allso rejected freud, jung, Spencer, although it has made attempts to become one, psychology is not a hard science.

although as I have suggested to netchicken, an open survey yielding results as high as 5% in a topic which you claim to be taboo suggests one of 2 things.

1: its acurate, and though the percentage of out homosexuals is lower than 1 in ten the population feels comfortable with it as a concept.

2: its innacurate, society is (as you suggest) NOT "ready" for homosexuality and the actual numbers are higher than those who felt able to say they they were Gay.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101

1) we have a 1 in 10 gay ratio here

2) society is ready.

3) U.P. on the other hand is not.

luckily his views are not in the majority and like christianity are slowly dying out.



1) I'm not surprised.


2) Wich society ? The society who's collapsing and going more perverted days after days ?

3) Sure I'm not. But I know that everything is a cycle. Yesterday, gay marriage weren't allowed. Today, it's 50/50. Tomorrow, it will be allowed(?).And after tomorrow, the things will go back to their natural position and these marriages will be, one more time, not allowed. So, I have just to wait. And I'm very patient guy !


Oh yeah, one last question. What will you do if the majority say "NO" to gay marriages ? Will you go to the bush for a kind of guerrilla warfare pro-gay ?



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:48 AM
link   
as I said to william, it won't go to a public vote. it will be decided by the government when they feel they won't loose an election over it. That doesn't require the majority of people to be happy with it, it just requires the majority of people to be happy with the majority of what the government is doing.

They pretty much are, most people have a "who cares if homosexuals want to marry" attitude, the small and highly vocal "we do" lobby aren't large enough to either bring about a public vote on policy (an unprecedented move) or sway the governmental manifesto.

the only real setback is the lords.....but luckily were getting rid of them.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Lupe, why do you want to get married? (or gay people get married?)

It can't be beause of religious beliefs, (although there are gay people in the church) surely.

If you want to make a public committment then do something pagan, mix your blood or something.

Legally you have the same rights as a married person if you cohabit for 3 years or more... in my country anyway.

Do you want recognition and equality?

But to achieve that in a religious framework requires distorting the religion itself, banging the square peg in the round hole.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:58 AM
link   
But to achieve that in a religious framework requires distorting the religion itself, banging the square peg in the round hole.

I'm not Gay, and I'm not a christian, and, if you read the whole thread both Q.O. and I have repeatedly stated that gay couples should not be allowed to get married in a church unless the church changes its views on homosexuality (which I'd like to see but doubt)

However we both believe they have the right to live as a legally married couple in the eyes of the law if they choose too.

we see no practical or objective reason why they should be denyed this right and can only assume it is due to some past religious connotations.

as such they should have been allowed to marry as soon as church and state seperated on the issue.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Homosexuality in the church has been a huge debate over the last 30 years, for me there is no place for it.

It is easy to show that a person cannot call themselves christian and still live a situation that is totally wrong. Like being a career thief, or a crooked used car salesman, and saying you were christian. The two cannot mix.

You can however be seen as equal in the eyes of the law WITHOUT being married, de-facto reltiaonships are considered legally the same as marriage in many countries.


we see no practical or objective reason why they should be denyed this right and can only assume it is due to some past religious connotations.


Well duh, thats pretty obvious.

The rite of "marriage" is a christian rite, there is no secular alternative, develop one of your own .... as I said earlier, its only a public committment.

To a non christian its just a show, so write your own show, or use one from another culture, .... but you can't expect it to be "marriage" in the christian context as that involves asking for God's blessing on the union which cannot be given.

"Dear lord please bless me as I go and mug little old ladies tonight that I may have a successful evening" its hypocritical...

[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:12 AM
link   
"If you want to make a public committment then do something pagan, mix your blood or something. "

oh look a hand fasting.
"marriage" is not an originally christian concept, it evolved from and absorbed other practices as it rose to promenance, you can still see some throw backs to its roots and to its pagan compromises in the throwing of the brides bouquet, the throwing of confetti etc.

but not only is marriage not originally the property of the church it is no longer seen as inseperable from the church, regardless of what people say during the ritual, most people who marry are non christians, most don't go to church and for most it is simply the way you get married, not a christian thing at all (hence the increased popularity of the registry office"

"marriage" is no longer part of the church, there is a non theist way to do it, as such there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to use a registry



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:21 AM
link   
What we have is a lack of an alternative to "marriage" for homosexuals.

Traditionally marriage was undertaken in a church and the records were kept there, once the record keeping was taken over by the state the functions were still kept in the church.

Now what we are really talking about is the documentation of a "Permanent Union".

So the development of a "Permanent Union" office filfilling the role of a registry, would fulfil the legal requirements demanded.

Marriage has devolved into a social rite, as well as a religious rite, but even then the vestiges of christianity still remain, that is why a homosexual permananent union can't be called "marriage".

[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:29 AM
link   
well traditionally it took place in a feild.....or a desert.......or a swamp.....and the record kept was a small strip of corn, or a notched stick, or a child

The argument that Marriage is the property of the church doesn't really hold water.....it evolved into being the property of the church and has now as you say devolved back to society.

to say that the local registry isn't allowed to perform weddings coz they got there first is a little like the local coven telling the local vicar that he can't perform a real marriage because they were doing it before them.

"marriage" has seperated from the church. By societys choosing. as such Marriage in a regestry has no need to uphold the beliefs of christianity and more than the vicat needs to make a corn dolly every beltane.

Its a theological bias existing in a non theist institute (the law) as such homosexulas have a right to it.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:56 AM
link   
the concept of marriage, as we know it today, is a Christian concept. Marriage in the Christian sense of the word implies fidelity to ONE partner. Previous to that, the male, could have many wives or concubines, as in the Hebrew sense. The legal formation of marriage (at its outset)was developed from the Mosaic Law of the O.T., became more stringent in Talmudic law, and was refined further by Jesus based upon the principle that God had created for Adam one woman with which to be partners, and so, that was as it was to be (another reason the maleocentric Hebrew culture rejected him LOL). It wasn't until Catholicism was developed and embraced by Rome, that the entirety of the concept of marriage as we know it came on the scene.
Now, on the other side of the planet, India, legal obligations to the wife were well advanced, although the question of fidelity wasn't an issue, for the male anyway. Marriages were pre-ordained by caste. The male was legally obligated to produce a child with his pre-chosen bride, and the laws were formatted as such that if he refused to, certain material compensations were to be given to the family of the bride, usually equal to the 'dowry'. While a legality, this NEVER occurred. Quite simply the male would claim that the female was 'barren' and unable to produce any offspring.
Back to the West, the institute of marriage proved to be quite the control mechanism for the Catholic Church. The priest could refuse to marry people. Such it was that the Holy Roman Empire was able to maintain division of those that through marriage could form powerful alliances to oppose the rule of Rome. It was also quite the money maker! The Holy Roman Church, as they did for every service, charged exhorbitantly for the sanctimony of God, another straw added to the camel's back that fomented the Protestant movement. Ironically, legends have sprung up surrounding the institute of marriage amongst Christians, one of them being St. Valentine. Although extremely questionable, St. Valentine is credited with marrying Christians when it was illegal to do so during the time of Dioclesian, for which he was tortured to death, and later Sainted by the Holy Roman Church (LOL, it always cracks me up that the same august body that kills them, deifies them later).
My question is why do homosexuals need the institute of marriage, especially in todays world when, what, some 51% of marriages are doomed anyways? Like I said in my previous post on this topic, 'Love has nothing to do with marriage. It can do quite fine without it.' (Although I don't understand why any man could not see the obvious superiority of an embrace from a woman, that however is another issue) Why is this even being discussed on ATS?



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 12:06 PM
link   
bravo MHB good informatiion


Don't worry about the topic we discuss anything here ....




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join