So this just arrived in my mailbox...

>>8852541
Why are the kids so much darker than the parents?

>>8852541
>the dignity of marriage
>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0
>There were 113,595 marriages registered and 48,517 divorces granted in Australia in 2015

>>8852541
>gay people! Please vote againts your own benefit and to be discriminated againts for wanting equal civil rights!
I get that OP is always a faggot, but are you people who constantly post these uncle tom type bullshit threads all over the board even gay?

>>8852541
They're right though. This is an agenda to destroy the family and turn kids into trannies. I'm gay and don't like it, but it is.

>>8852541
>Explicit transgender sexual education classes will be forced upon our children and parents will no longer have a say
>Protect our children from the hidden anti-family political agenda
Wow, they learned well from the American conservative fearmongering machine. I'm surprised they didn't go with outright pedophilia. The plebiscite isn't even for a *bill*, it's to gauge the interest for one.

Man, I feel bad for Aussies having to deal with this for 3 more months.

>>8852611
It's not the gays, it's all the other shit along with them. Polygamy, trannies, other perversions.

>>8852618
Slippery slope.

>>8852599
How the bloody hell does allowing gays to marry "destroy the family"? Are hypothetical kids better off unwanted with parents in a loveless relationship because their father married straight to keep up appearances? And besides, no-fault divorce destroyed the family decades ago.

>turn kids into trannies
Are they turning the frogs gay too?

You are falling for >>8852580.

>>8852580
>gay people! Please vote againts your own benefit
How is this against my benefit? And don't say "because then you can't get married".

>>8852625
Science on gays as parents:

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false

>>8852622
Slippery slope is not a fallacy when we understand how one leads to the other. Trannies will push for pushing transsexual children.
> Are they turning the frogs gay too?
They're turning kids into trannies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqSdcvIz4VI

>>8852628
Why should states in Australia be banned from recognizing gay marriage? It is one thing to oppose it federally, but currently states cannot recognize gay marriage. Why are you opposed to states rights?

>>8852633

Explain this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/study-having-gay-parents-does-not-affect-childs-gender-identity-2579343

File: pedos.jpg (231KB, 750x1051px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 750x1051px

>>8852638

Also this image. Please explain it.

>>8852638
Not an argument.

>>8852642
>straight men are pedophiles
who knew

>>8852635
I'm not. I think it should be the states' decision, Sadly Turnbull decided not to ask us about that.

>>8852628
>How is this against my benefit? And don't say the benefit it would give me.
But sure, I'll play along with your stupid rules.
>recognizes same sex love and same sex identities as valid, gays no longer second class citizens
>works towards normalizing so you don't have to hide in the closet or risk losing your employment and housing
And don't underestimate the real legal benefits of marriage that homosexuals are currently denied just for being homosexual:
>household tax benefits
>hospital visitation
>possible insurance benefits/sharing
>inheritance benefits should something happen to one of you
>adoption

>>8852653
This is only an issue because NSW was banned from allowing gay marriage even though they wanted to and a plurality of gay men and women reside there.

In South Australia a person in a de facto partnership cannot be listed on their partner's death certificate. Therefore they cannot access bereavement benefits from Centrelink, they can't get access to their partner's super or life insurance, and they can't get access to any property they didn't have shared title over (like cars, bank accounts, possibly real estate...) without the consent of their next of kin. If their partner's next of kin is either greedy or homophobic or otherwise adversarial, that throws up huge problems. And even if they aren't the process of transfer is lengthy and the first mentioned partner is in mourning at the time. (registered) spouses are automatically named on the death certificate.

Also, in family court proceedings, judges have a wide discretion of determining the nature of a relationship while overseeing a break up. Say a same sex couple has been in a de facto relationship for 15 years and they own a house and have raised a child. A judge can decide they weren't de facto, they were merely cohabitating, which can severely disadvantage one party to the proceedings who might be seeking shared custody of the child, or ownership of a certain asset, or asserting equitable title to the house. If the couple happen to be married, the judge's opinion doesn't matter, the marriage certificate is conclusive evidence of the relationship.

>>8852663

Opposition to same sex marriage can't be because of "muh children", because gays can already adopt and raise children. It can literally only be on the basis that you don't think gay couples should be allowed automatic access to their deceased partner's stuff because that's the only gap amending the marriage act would fill.

There's an approximately uniform legislative scheme for de facto relationships in Australia. The problem with amending uniform legislation on controversial issues like marriage equality is that the mirror legislation doesn't change with it. If Victoria and WA amended their relevant legislation to bring de facto partnerships the rest of the way, there's no guarantee that state governments with more right wing electorates like qld, tas and nsw would do the same thing. It's clearly a job for the commonwealth parliament which is why it's always been treated that way.

But more to the point - if a de facto partnership conferred on the members of the partnership all the rights and responsibilities and benefits of a marriage, why wouldn't you call it a marriage? That's what it would be, after all. If you build an implement with a long wooden handle and four metal prongs fixed to the end, you don't make a shovel just because you call it that. You make a pitchfork. It's just pedantic and confused logic that gives same sex couples all the rights of marriage while still wanting to """win""" the public debate by technically not calling it marriage. It's ridiculous.

>>8852657
>what are civil unions

>>8852663
State matters and irrelevant to the federal vote.

>>8852642
>>8852651
evolutionary bias towards younger mates. before modern times, men commonly married girls younger than 18. unfortunately, evolutionary programming moves at a much slower rate than societal innovations allowing longer life and later child-rearing

>conservatives getting this butthurt over a word

File: IMG_1254.jpg (150KB, 750x838px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 750x838px

>>8852663
>In South Australia a person in a de facto partnership cannot be listed on their partner's death certificate
What does this first bullet point say lad?

>>8852672
whereas gay men tend to be attracted to bears and older men
it is literally safe for a child to have a gay parent than not

>>8852669
dude, you can't say "what are civil unions" and then completely write off a comment explaining why actual marriage is necessary for some benefits. plus civil unions not being recognized nationwide is a HUGE issue.

>>8852680
unless the child is a boy. then he is in danger of sexual abuse every day of his life.

>>8852677
>South Australia

>Image is NSW

That's the point. Laws on gay rights differ by state currently.

>>8852689
No he is not....

>>8852695
It's the south though.

>>8852653
I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the logic behind leaving a civil right to the states. I'm not totally sure how federalism works in Australia, but in the US it was incredibly obnoxious to have your partnership only valid in certain states. Especially since we have an article in our Constitution that's supposed to mean all states must recognize the licenses of others, but somehow they decided it didn't apply to gay marriage.

The whole idea of civil rights is that they are guaranteed. Not withheld depending on where conservatives live. It's part of living in a nation.

>>8852710
Oh, and we tried the state-level civil rights thing in the US for a while. We got Jim Crow. You can see how that turned out.

The main arguments against allowing fags to marry in Australia are that:
It redefines what natural marriage is (a biological man and woman).
The totalitarian leftist gay agenda will push its views and silence those who dissent.
Homosexual sex ed will be taught in schools.
It will become illegal to criticize homosexuality.
Subversion of the church.
It will be a slippery slope (eventually) after gay marriage is legalized (I won't list what it may lead to tho).

I'm not making an argument for these so don't reply to me defending any of this. I'm just pointing it out.

>>8852681
>explaining why actual marriage is necessary for some benefits.
It's not necessary and you could change civil unions to have all the benefits of marriage more easily than create gay marriage. But you, by which I mean the "pro-LGBT" people who got the referendum to be held, would rather fight over the name "marriage" than than care about the actual issues that affect same-sex couples.

>plus civil unions not being recognized nationwide is a HUGE issue.
State matter.

>>8852710
Why do you states should exist at all?

Assuming you do?

>>8852714
>You can see how that turned out.
It was corrected and abolished. That's how it turned out. Equality thrives in the US now, stop acting like we discriminate here.

>>8852731
The real argument is that marriage should be got rid off, not entrenched further.

>>8852731
Churches in Europe blessing same sex celebrants:

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/04/britains-first-same-sex-marriage-celebrated-in-a-scottish-church/

http://archive.is/5p3DJ

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/08/25/17/italian-protestant-church-says-i-do-to-gay-blessings

http://archive.is/qSJ0j

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/church-takes-its-first-gay-wedding-booking-1-8737310

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/claims-parishioners-were-screamed-at-by-antisamesex-marriage-priest-who-demanded-his-flock-all-vote-no/news-story/b800c05f41b435322e87ab15faaf8adc

http://archive.is/j1PMe


Church attendance is declining:

https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/

http://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

>>8852633
No! The attitude is simply changing. Instead of, "You're fucked in the head and a disgusting person be ashamed" we are saying, "These things are complex, take the time to think about it and don't be ashamed of how you feel."

>>8852599
wtf would people accomplish by forcing kids to be trans?

File: GayMarriageReligion.png (210KB, 700x1006px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 700x1006px

>>8852749

>>8852746
You bogan bot

"I'm not making an argument for these so don't reply to me defending any of this. I'm just pointing it out."

>>8852745
I agree! I wish that would happen here in America but the gov has controlled it too long now and makes too much money off it to just outright stay the fuck out of regulating marriage.

File: GayMonogamy.png (139KB, 994x1064px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 994x1064px

>>8852755
I'm not defending trans. I believe biological men are men.

>>8852759
I am adding more context to your points.

>>8852757
This is for USA. How about some data for Aussies?

>>8852764
The LGBT community could be at the forefront of demanding its establishment as a government issue and its reduction to a religious ceremony only.

Instead, LGBT has turned into a defender of government marriage and dashed probably our best chance of ending the practice.

>>8852770

http://www.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fairfaxipsos-poll-shows-70-per-cent-support-for-samesex-marriage-among-those-certain-to-vote-20170911-gyewa6.html

http://archive.is/qWLzk

>>8852731
Since you so kindly listed them, I thought to go point by point. Note that I'm not Australian so I don't know the intricacies of Australian law.
>It redefines what natural marriage is
In the religious sense, marriage is untouched. This is only a big deal because marriage is also a state institution.
>totalitarian leftist gay agenda
stop reading /pol/, it's bad for you
>homosexual sex ed
Oh, you mean telling adolescents that homosexuality is a recognized thing and they're not crazy?
>illegal to criticize homosexuality
So...boo hoo, I can't call people fags? Is that it? I legitimately don't get this objection, but I guess it falls under seeing homosexuality as some kind of subversive leftist agenda instead of a sexual orientation.
>subversion of the church
Does Australia have separation of church and state? Last I recall, it's not a theocracy.
>slippery slope
literally a fallacy, and since we haven't seen the legalization of pedophilia or bestiality in nations that have recognized homosexuality, I think it's safe to say it won't happen. trans is a legitimate issue.

>>8852768
As much as I want to believe this, gay men are NOT wanting to be monogamous. There's a big difference between wanting to be monogamous (every gay's dreams) and actuality (pressure by partner or temptation). There are many article explaining real stories about why gays cling to polygamy due to the differing societal/cultural standards between heterosexual and homosexuals. The dynamics between the two are completely different.

>>8852757
This doesn't mean that people are forcing each other to be gay/trans. It means that straight people are less afraid of these concepts, and LGBTQ people are less ashamed.

>>8852541
Fucking lol. Gay marriage is bad but race mixing is ok.
Stupid Aussies

>>8852783
>I'm not making an argument for these so don't reply to me defending any of this. I'm just pointing it out.
Good job wasting your time.

>>8852795
I wasn't posting them in support of that person's arguments.

>>8852794
https://www.queerty.com/monogamy-making-comeback-among-younger-gay-couples-study-finds-20160922

http://archive.is/vobIA

>>8852801

Giving people as much data as possible on the issues is important.

>>8852794
My bf told me he'd break up with me and tell everyone that I forced myself else on him if I don't let him try out the BBC

File: IMG_1238.jpg (181KB, 750x919px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 750x919px

>>8852783
>bestiality
Check Canada's laws honey.

>>8852810
tbdog there is nothing wrong with this as long as the dog is topping you

>>8852810
>When you can't read
Some burger education right here.
12 of your states have no criminalization of bestiality. One of which is Texas. Take the knot, bitch

>>8852541
I'm gay and utterly agree with this.

Fuck anyone who believes in "gay marriage".

>>8852805
Give me a moment, and I'll reply with a wall of text proving, based on studies that monogamy is not prevalent.

>>8852829
Do they have representative samples or convenience samples that are not generalizable?

>>8852837
Just give me a few minutes to compile it, then you can dissect it if you wish.

>>8852783
>>8852810
>>8852817
>>8852819
>it's wrong to fuck animals
>it's fine to eat them

>>8852847
>t. veganfag
You are the worst kind of homo

>>8852843

Could you just look and see if they compiled the data in San Francisco or at a pride parade or not? I can tell you already that is likely an issue.

>>8852847
>It's okay to eat these animals
>It's not okay to eat these ones
>Why?
>I like these ones, those other ones are gross and only for food.

>>8852856
Don't worry, I'll compile them, try to add a link and then we can go from there.

>>8852865
Link the DOI if they are actual studies.

>83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime.
>43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners.
>28% with 1,000 or more partners.
>79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers.

Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, "Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314

>The gay-friendly American Psychological Association stated, “After the AIDS epidemic, the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year.”

Sally Ann Stewart, AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men, USA Today, 21 November 1984

>In The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, psychiatrist David P. McWhirter and psychologist Andrew M. Mattison (themselves a ‘gay’ pair) authored the results of a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years. They reported:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

>“few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” The 1985 study also recorded that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.”

M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, 1985: 40-61.

>>8852927
>30 year old studies
>>>/pol/
Take your shitposting and go

>Dr. Martin Dannecker studied 900 male homosexuals in 1991 living in a “steady relationship” in Bonn, Germany. According to Dr. Dannecker, 83 percent (747) of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their relationship within the past 12 months. Of the homosexual men in “committed” relationships, he observed, “The average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year.” Single “gay” men reported having 45 sexual contacts.

Wittmeier, Carmen, Now They Know the Other Half, Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.

>Homosexuals ... are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.

Bradley P. Hayton, To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples, Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 199: 9

>The “gay” magazine Genre surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. This study revealed that 52 percent had sex in a public park and 45 percent participated in three-way sexual activity. In their lifetime, 16 percent reported between 40 to 100 sexual partners, and 24 percent claimed more than 100 different partners. The magazine also noted that several respondents suggested including a category for those having more than one thousand sexual partners.

“Sex Survey Results,” Genre (October 1996), quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,”Lambda Report, January 1998: 20.

>>8852935
I'm bringing it up to date you faggot moron

>>8852939
>Cherry picking
>Statistics means everyone is this bad

>muh consenting adults
Yet they will not voice support for incestuous marriage. Unprincipled hypocrites.

>In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven reported that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” Furthermore, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having between 501 and 1,000 partners, and a further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. Only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with only one partner.

Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997)

>The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study which indicated that “many self- described ‘monogamous’ couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern.”

David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity, New York:Oxford University Press, 2000: 73.

>In Demography, a study relying upon three large data sets — the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census — estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.

Dan Black, et al., “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography 37, May 2000: 141.

>According to a Canadian study authored by “gay” professor Barry Adam, only 25 percent of homosexual men involved in “committed relationships” of longer than one year actually practiced monogamy. “Gay culture allows men to explore different forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals,” Adam reported.

Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows,” Washington Blade, August 22, 2003: 18

>>8852927
Have you even read these studies? Can you provide me a doi or something I can plug into sci-hub.bz to read these? I did a search for the first article and the first source that came up was the ex-gay group Exodus.

>>8852956

Can you actually link to how to read any of these articles? Have you even read them yourself?

>A study of partnered homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that men in a “steady” relationship had an average of eight sexual partners per year, and the “duration of [their] steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.

Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 2003: 1031.

>The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. The study indicated that in 71 percent of the cases, male homosexuals purporting to be in a “long term relationship” merely lasted seven or fewer years. Only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with 9 percent lasting more than 15 years, and a paltry 5 percent more than twenty years.

“Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org.

>Colleen Hoff, professor of Sexuality Studies at San Francisco State University and director for the University’s Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality conducted a five-year longitudinal study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Hoff and her co-authors examined the relationship dynamics of 566 “gay” partnerships in the context of HIV prevention. The results, published in the July 2010 issue of the journal AIDS Care, documented that 99 percent had sexual agreements. Specifically, 45 percent had “monogamous agreements,” 47 percent had “open agreements,” and 8 percent had “discrepant agreements” where the partners were in disagreement as to whether their relationship was open or monogamous.

>>8852969
Wait so 7 years isn't a long time for people who aren't even allowed to have kids or marry at the beginning of that period?

>>8852969
>>>/pol/
GO BACK
You faggots never even read the studies. You just see
>This headline fits my narrative, I'll use it
Then you just ignore every proof that you fucked up so you don't have to admit you lost

>>8852957
Links were not available. These studies do exist though, and I've provided "proper" citations. Dissect them at your discretion.

>>8852977
Also why is gay marriage bad if monogamy is the goal?

>>8852977
>go back to /pol/
>calls me a faggot
LEL
Obviously not everyone is polygamous. I'm just posting evidence that studies were conducted worldwide that showed there's a high rate of polygamy among homosexuals.

>>8852983
The only argument I've heard by straights about gay marriage is that we could get easier access to children which implies that straight people are pedophiles and don't want to share with gays

>>8852989
Yeah the paedophile argument is weaksauce. Sane people do not molest or hurt children. Period. Gay or straight, sane people don't do that shit.

>>8852987
You haven't read any of these and can't link to a readable format.

Are you really going to deny that most of these studies were done with non-representative populations? Do you think a single one of these studies asked gay people in Iowa? They ask openly gay people in big cities this as if that's everyone. People who volunteer for gay-themed surveys are more likely to be less monogamous. That doesn't make this data representative and you haven't even read it.

>>8852996
Don't give the shill anymore (you)s

>>8853005
I mean they have a right to present data but if we can't even read it and they haven't read it what is the point.

>>8852995
But gays are far more likely to be pedophiles. 4% of the population, 40% of the pedophiles.

>>8853008
Attention and the hope that the people they talk to are as stupid as they are.
You know those stop the fags posters? The study used 20 homosexual couples, 85% of which were lesbians. And they use that to misrepresent gay men's as pedophile sex fiends

>>8853023
https://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf

This is good reading on the subject.

>>8853024
Sullins?

>>8853023
Read your own studies nigger.
The study your preaching from used a lesbian majority to demonstrate homosexual child abuse

Is this what you're looking for?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12700453

>>8853034
Yeah if you post DOI information the code that looks like :

10.1097/01.aids.0000050879.72891.1d

I can type it directly into sci-hub.bz to read it.

>>8853034
Meant for you >>8853008

>>8853038
PMID: 12700453
DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000050879.72891.1d

>>8853044

Weird for that article I had to type the title into scihub. Anyways so they surveyed young gay men living in Amsterdam. Makes me wonder where they recruited them and how, which they didn't go into. The point is we only get a snapshot of urban open gays with these studies at best.

>>8853023
Correlation is not causation.

>>8853050

Also:

The mathematical model presented in this paper sug- gests that the majority of new infections among young homosexual men in Amsterdam can be attributed to steady partners. Changes in risky behaviour with steady partners thus have a greater impact on HIV incidence than the equivalent changes among casual partners. The model also shows that increases in risky behaviour may counterbalance the positive effect of HAART, although such increases could be outweighed by in- creased HIV testing and HAART administration.

from that study.

steady partners...

>>8853050
Let me give you a few more if I can find the codes

>>8853054
He's also the kind of retard who sees the word child abuse and automatically translates it to pedophilia
His "statistic" stretches anywhere from 20-90% I've seen. These people are sheeple idiots

>>8853064

It is still our responsibility to review the data (if it is given) and provide a specific counter-argument no matter how retarded the study.

>>8852749
See, anon, that would require empathy and rational thought.

>>8853050

Is this one? https://doi.org/10.2307/2648117

I can't find one to this one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477?seq=1#

http://www.cfcidaho.org/comparing-lifestyles-homosexual-couples-married-couples

>>8853109
>https://doi.org/10.2307/2648117

If only people actually read these studies:

Black et al. (1998) provide a similar analysis using GSS data from 1988–1991, 1993, 1994, and 1996. They find that the effect of sexual orientation on earnings depends to some degree on the definition of sexual orientation that is used. One general finding in their work confirms Badgett’s earlier finding for men: Gay men appear to earn substantially less than other men with equal skills. Lesbian women, however, earn 20% to 35% more than other equally skilled women; this difference is statistically significant.

Because of the low incidence rate (and the modest sample size of the NHSLS), only 12 women and 27 men report thinking of themselves as homosexual.

Yeah that's not really a generalizable sample size.

The point is, whether you want to disregard the "evidence" or not, gay men and women have no obligation to be monogamous. What is the point of being monogamous when that sexual interaction can never lead to procreation?

>>8853141
Well also that there is data indicating female gays are VERY monogamous and that monogamy in gay males is certainly increasing now.

>>8852675
I feel like its projection whenever they try to claim libruls are easily triggered considering they flip their shit over words.

Like god, what are you, a fucking tranny?

Also because that naturally leads to well gay people never have kids, so they shouldn't be allowed marriage, which simply isn't true. Surrogacy, adoption and kids from prior heterosexual relationships all have an impact on the utility of monogamy in a gay relationship.

>>8853153

Its not that monogamy is a bad thing or that all gays are monogamous it is that there is no data that married gays or gays in long term relationships with kids are part of these samples showing increased promiscuity in homosexual populations.

We certainly did not have random samples in the 1980s or 1990s with large sample sizes of these populations.

>>8853148
I mean, I myself only want monogamy and I don't care what other people do, but polygamy is a staple of gay sexual identity since the liberation in the 70s and 80s. I wish we would stop denying that.

>>8852956
All before gay marriage was a thing, younger gays are more likely to be monogamous than their predecessors, retard

>>8853176
Its not a staple of current homosexual pairings who have kids though. That's the implication of the anti-gay argument is that gays who have kids will be more promiscuous.

>>8853182
Being married (or have a kid for that matter) does not imply that you are not promiscuous though. Infidelity and open relationships are still higher among homosexuals.

>>8853187
Are they higher among gays who have kids though or who are married? That's what this data is not indicating. When you only have 100 people or less in your study who are gay, which is what normally happens when you study only the homosexual portion of a random sample of people in general, you don't get generalizable data on them, let alone on a subset group like married gays or gays with children.

>>8853176
Except for younger gays that's becoming less the case, in large part because of societal acceptance and gay marriage being legal. Just because some old queens used to sleep around doesn't mean that young gays who have nothing to do with them are going to become nonmonogamous, gay culture isn't passed from older generations like other culture is

>>8853194
I don't understand why you still don't acknowledge polygamy is a problem for gays...
>inb4 it's not

>>8853203
I don't think it is a problem. Also polygamy has a specific meaning. It means people who marry multiple people.

>>8853206
We're never going to agree.

>>8853211
Younger gays are becoming more monogamous. I cited data on that. You have no data that monogamy is not prevalent for gays with kids, or female gays. It is in both groups. The gays who are not monogamous are either not having kids, or not yet, and are heading in the direction overall of monogamy thanks in part due to the legalization of gay marriage and adoption. So where exactly is the issue?

>>8853218

You have yet to present modern data comparing heterosexuals to homosexuals as well to determine the partnership habits of heterosexuals in contrast. Nobody is claiming all heterosexuals are monogamous either. The issue is enhanced promiscuity for a particular group, not it existing at all, unless your point is to try to make EVERYONE monogamous, which is wildly unrealistic.

>>8853218
The issue is that I don't believe you. I've read about gay culture, I've seen evidence of infidelity among (young) gays. It's fucking great homos want to be monogamous; it will only benefit them in the eyes of society. But when it comes to obtaining more rights, especially when they're "controversial", all sides of the equation should be objectively looked at. Downplaying every action taken by gays is my pet peeve. Acting like gays are the perfect model of a social human being, even more than heterosexuals, is my pet peeve. You aren't going to convince me otherwise just like I won't convince you otherwise.

>>8853176
Wrong
Polygamy is a staple of women who then forced it on us while pretending to be lesbians and bisexuals

>>8853238
Well the data speaks to otherwise. I am not saying gays are a perfect model I'm saying that claiming we are inherently worse than heterosexuals and therefore can have our rights restricted is wrong.

I get that you don't like gay people but your arguments are not supported by quality evidence. One study had a small sample and the other found that steady gay couples had more disease burden.

>>8853243
>I get that you don't like gay people but your arguments are not supported by quality evidence. One study had a small sample and the other found that steady gay couples had more disease burden.
tbqf, it stems from not being able to completely come to terms with my sexuality and the obvious influence from /pol/, the complete lack of gay friends, etc.

>>8853261
>Gay friends
You don't want gay friends, they're like pol friends.
It's okay to talk to them but don't seriously invest

>>8853243
Also, my main beef with this is the wording "marriage". It should be called something else for those who cannot procreate yet want government acknowledgement of their union.

File: caption030717-500x485.jpg (38KB, 500x485px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x485px

>>8853326
>my main beef with this is the wording "marriage".
that is such a stupid argument.
separate but equal is not equal.
your idiotic sky-daddy beliefs are not going to be ruined if gays get married.

>>8853261
I get that but don't you get how this behavior is harmful?

>>8853326
But gays do have kids though so why the trouble of two sets of laws for people with kids? If NO gays had kids, you would have a point but around 20% still do, often from prior heterosexual relationships + surrogacy + adoption. Why should those KIDS be treated any differently under the eyes of the law? Gay marriage is not about those who are promiscuous it is mostly for people who want kids or have already been together a long time.

>>8853441
>so why the trouble of two sets of laws for people with kids?
Good question, let's turn all marriages into civil partnerships.

>>8853421
>separate but equal is not equal.
I never said that! I'd love to allow gays the same benefits as straight married couples. I just don't think the word marriage should be used for homosexual unions.

>>8853463
But nobody is seriously proposing to restrict straight people into civil partnerships. The state has a compelling interest in the lives and affairs of anyone who a) pays taxes and b) has kids, and whatever you believe, you have to admit there are people who are 1) homosexual and 2)have kids and or pay taxes. Religion has a compelling interest in restricting the rights of gays but that is not AS compelling as the state interest in not having to have separate laws for different groups of people, which at best a hassle.

>>8853464

But if the benefits are exactly the same why does the wording need to be different? Are gays with kids lesser citizens than straights with kids?

>>8853464
Why does it matter? Why do you need a special word just for heteros?

>>8853441
>I get that but don't you get how this behavior is harmful?
How is my opinion/belief harmful in any way? I'm not an activist in anyway so it's not like anyone outside of the internet is going to know.
>But gays do have kids though so why the trouble of two sets of laws
I'm not saying that though. I think there should be a distinction made between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, and that distinction should be in the wording of what you call it. Instead of the word marriage use unioned or something else we can agree upon. Marriage implies something different, imho.

>>8853477
>Are gays with kids lesser citizens than straights with kids?
Not at all! Distinction with wording are made all the time, and I just believe this is one of those times.

>>8853487
Your opinion is only harmful in the behavior it incites. If you use it to try to imply falsely that there is a consensus that gay rights should be limited compared to that of homosexuals, even in a country where a majority of people disagree with that, that is wrong. We generally govern in the West based on what a majority of people want, and we balance compelling interests and harms and in this case the harm done to gays by you imposing your beliefs on us is greater than the harm to us by telling you you cannot enshrine those beliefs in law.

Why do kids need a separate set of laws for parental rights? Can you not see how that complicates court matters? You obviously have never had to go to court over your kids. Marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state. Rendering additional meaning upon it is optional. The laws themselves are not explicitly religious therefore religious beliefs have no impact on their implementation. There are so many rights apart from the religious value of marriage that are normally construed by the word marriage. Wanting gay people to not be able to call themselves husband and wife is socially detrimental when you get that opportunity. You have nothing here besides I've got mine, fuck you.

>>8853506

Then what is the basis for the distinction if the state views the children of homosexual unions as equal to the children of heterosexual unions?

>>8853481
You're only going to bash on me for saying this, but due to our culture and practices for thousands of years, marriage implies man and woman and innate procreation. Since gays are the same gender and cannot procreate, I believe the word should be different; the gay equivalent to marriage.

>>8853518
But marriage is not conferred solely on the basis of procreation. Gays do have kids, so why should they suffer? Gay marriage is the gay equivalent to marriage, literally, and legally. We used to kill witches too.

>>8853473
Yup, nobody is advocating it, because you people don't care about equality, just grabbing everything you don't have.

>>8853533
That's a false accusation not supported by evidence.

>>8853508
>If you use it to try to imply falsely that there is a consensus that gay rights should be limited
Have I made that argument once in this thread? No, I have not.
>Wanting gay people to not be able to call themselves husband and wife is socially detrimental when you get that opportunity.
Again, I'm not saying that for Christ sake. Keep all the terms and all the legal laws in place, just add the extra word for what you would call same sex married couples.
>us
You are constantly trying to make the distinction that I am just here shitposting or trolling against gays. I am not.

>>8853545
Extra word or separate laws? I'm not saying you are shitposting, I'm saying there's no rational reason we need two separate sets of laws or different wording for equivalent groups.

>>8853510
Why make the distinction between owning an "exotic animal" and a typical pet, such as a goldfish or a snake? They're there for distinction.

>>8853518
No, I'm not going to bash on you. I don't think that's an outlandish belief at all -- you care about tradition.

What do you think about heterosexual, married couples who choose not to have children, or have fertility issues? Should they be able to say they're married, even though they can't or don't want to procreate?

Would having an alternative word to marriage for gay couples (like a civil union) imply that, because of who they're attracted to, they are second class citizens who can't have the "real thing"? Like you said, marriage is a deeply rooted cultural institution all around the world, and being shut out of that because of something you can't control can feel like a slap in the face.

>>8853556
>I'm saying there's no rational reason we need two separate sets of laws or different wording for equivalent groups.
I'm only saying different wording, not separate laws.

>>8853566
Because exotic animals have different risks. Those groups are not rendered equivalent in the eyes of the state.

>>8853575
How would that work?

>>8853566
total aside but technically speaking, "exotic pet" means almost everything outside cats and dogs, including birds, rabbits, and rodents

>>8853571
>What do you think about heterosexual, married couples who choose not to have children, or have fertility issues? Should they be able to say they're married, even though they can't or don't want to procreate?
No, they should still be called married due to the fact that they are 1 man and 1 woman. Infertility should not be a determining factor.
>they are second class citizens who can't have the "real thing"
I don't believe I'm saying that though, and I'm sorry you think I am. Gays deserve every single right available, same as straight people, without overreach (totalitarianism).

>>8853579
My point is, distinction can be and is necessary.
I'm going to use the word "unioned" for this example, just so we're on the same page. To documents, just add the word unioned where marriage is mentioned. Simple, no? Marriage = Unioned, just the distinction between the two is made. Like I said, I value the original wording of what marriage means, not what it has come to include.

>>8853579
>How would that work?
are you retarded?

>>8853622
Why is it necessary compared to the additional burden to the state of having separate or more complex regulations to govern their people?

So straight people would use the word marriage and gay people would use the term unioned?

>>8853575
At that point, why? Why cling to words? There's literally no reason at that point other than muh religious/traditional fee-fees

>>8853628
>So straight people would use the word marriage and gay people would use the term unioned?
In my example yes, They would both confer the meaning (like synonyms) that two people are devoted to each other and recognized equally by the state.
>>8853638
>Why cling to words?
Because for millennia, marriage was always defined the same way. We aren't changing other words to be more tolerant or inclusive. We aren't changing "heterosexuality" to mean attraction between same sex individuals.

>>8853596
The point I'm trying to make about second-class citizens is what the distinction *implies*, and why the word itself is so important. It goes along with participating in the culture, participating in the stages of human life. Marriage is a heavy word, a transformation, a rite of passage, a stage of life we've been preparing for since our first Disney movie. Excluding someone from it, even in name only, is to mark them as an outsider, to say "you are not normal". The underlying principle of marriage equality, is the principle that homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition for those who experience it. Denying marriage equality, in name, denies equal humanity.

(Obviously I don't mean the religious sense of marriage.)

>>8853653
If they are synonyms why do you need two separate words? We used to say that Black people couldn't own property. Should that not have changed? We used to say that non-landowners couldn't vote. Should that have changed?

>>8853666
This is well stated.

>>8853666
Okay satan...
I don't see how having a synonym is discrimination in any way. Gay is technically not normal, meaning it's not the standard operation for humanity, but that doesn't infer that it's inappropriate, just different.
>Denying marriage equality, in name, denies equal humanity.
God damnit, I'm not saying this!!! Fuck.

>>8853690
If it is the same why does it need a different word?

Plastics are not normal. Being gay is a natural human condition. Some people are born gay and punishing them in any way for that is wrong.

>>8853666
>Marriage is a heavy word, a transformation, a rite of passage, a stage of life
Which is why the obsession with ti should be ended, not facilitated.

>>8853690
>God damnit, I'm not saying this!!!
No, what you're saying is "I'm not racist, but..."

>>8853703

Straight people were never seriously suggesting eroding their own rights to agreements with the state. They were just bitter they couldn't have religious agreements with a secular government and took this out on gays.

>>8853704
Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Why would the law differ on a principle settled decades ago?

>>8853681
>If they are synonyms why do you need two separate words?
Like I stated, marriage IMPLIES penis and vagina procreation (whether it's possible or not due to unfortunate circumstances).
>We used to say that Black people couldn't own property. Should that not have changed?
You don't want my answer to that.
t. bigot
>>8853702
>If it is the same why does it need a different word?
Distinction.
>Some people are born gay and punishing them in any way for that is wrong.
I agree. I've never states otherwise.
>>8853704
>No, what you're saying is "I'm not racist, but..."
Lol, gay is not a race, but you aren't far off on your accusation.
>>8853714
>Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
Class distinctions are separate but equal, does that mean they are inherently unequal?

>>8852574
Clearly there those average ultra religious foster parents, that love to take in children, brainwash them, tell them never to talk to anyone or god will punish them- then abuse the shit out of them while they collect payment.

>>8853702
>Some people are born gay and punishing them in any way for that is wrong
if people are born gay why are gays so obsessed with indoctrination of children?

File: ReligioninAmerica6.png (289KB, 868x1072px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 868x1072px

>>8853756
Marriage does not imply procreation. This is not an explicit requirement of marriage.

Ok well if you want severely reactionary policies you can understand why the majority does not want what you want implemented because they don't share your self-interest. Gay people have a right to advocate for their own self interest. When gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court in 2015 37 states already had legalized it(1). The issue was the 13 states who had not.

If you don't support individual rights for non-majority groups, consider that White Christians are now a minority (2) and explain to me why they, as a minority group, deserve to be able to influence the law with their religious beliefs:

1 http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html

2 https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/

White Christians now account for fewer than half of the public. Today, only 43% of Americans identify as white and Christian, and only 30% as white and Protestant. In 1976, roughly eight in ten (81%) Americans identified as white and identified with a Christian denomination, and a majority (55%) were white Protestants.

File: GenGay.png (379KB, 666x940px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 666x940px

>>8853768
What a leading statement. Cite evidence, not anecdotal opinion.

>>8853771
White Christians are a minority, but are still the plurality.

>>8853518
*100's of years, before that marriage was with multiple women, and before the that, the concept was different, and before that greeks fucked each other up the ass and invented democracy.

So... Democracy is better than marriage. Duh.

>>8853781
Where does it say in the law that only pluralities get coverage under the laws? The purpose of the law is to protect minority groups. If the United States had wanted an official church, we could have had one. Protection of minority groups, in that case religious, was inherent to the founding of the United States.

File: guesswho.jpg (37KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x382px

>>8853781
not for much longer

File: ReligioninAmerica13.png (179KB, 718x1054px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 718x1054px

>>8853791
They are declining. I am not sure what your argument is.

>>8853771
You are putting in so much effort to bash me on my opinion of this and I don't understand why. Gay marriage is legal, it's called marriage, homosexual can adopt and get married in all 50 states. You won already. I don't get why you are so hellbent on wanting to prove to me what already is. Again, you have already won this entire debate on gay marriage. I only think (meaning my opinion) that marriage should be distinct from unioned (if you were following my example). Distinction is not grounds for discrimination of inequality.
And don't ask me to defend Christians, I'm not going into that discussion. All people should be represented and protected. Again, if you are uncertain of my motives let me redirect you to this reply: >>8853261

File: ReligioninAmerica9.png (149KB, 1068x964px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1068x964px

>>8853820
Distinction is discrimination per Brown v Board of Education.

My point is people who want to restrict gay rights are now a minority but we still must be vigilant to keep our rights.

File: faggots-at-pride-parade.jpg (70KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x540px

>>8853774
WOAH. SO. DIVERSE. AND. PROGRESSIVE!
>In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." [26]

File: classes.png (32KB, 258x417px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 258x417px

>>8853833
So the distinctions in classes are discrimination?

>>8853833
>My point is people who want to restrict gay rights are now a minority but we still must be vigilant to keep our rights.
"Our" rights are not threatened at all, and are expanding year by year.

>>8853864

They should change that to everyone except white people.

>>8853892
No desu, white is the superior race.

>>8853876

Sounds more like a privilege if you ask me...

>>8853852
Literally one person's opinion.
No because they are supposed to be applied neutrally. That is no one subtype within the clades are to be treated differently under the eyes of the law. That is the importance. It is just a listing of characteristics considered inherent and unwavering, and therefore to be protected against malicious actions.

>>8853900
What does that mean?

>>8853876

That could change at any time and I am not above discounting the possibility.

>>8853911
Tell me, whose rights were retroactively reduced?

>>8853919
Jim Crow.

>>8853909
maybe just maybe, some people aren't ok with their children getting indoctrinated by blue haired PC freaks.

>>8853929
>the libruls are turning my kids gay!!11!
except that's literally not how homosexuality works
transtrenders, maybe

>>8853929
http://www.ibtimes.com/study-having-gay-parents-does-not-affect-childs-gender-identity-2579343

>>8853921
Did history not sort itself out? Are blacks not equal citizens? Was America still sorting itself out after slavery? Historical context matters. We don't allow that sort of stuff to happen now, and if you don't have faith in America, I beg you find somewhere else that you think will be more beneficial to your sexuality, which is apparently your only livelihood.

>>8853934

>except that's literally not how homosexuality works

Yes it does

>>8853939
There are still plenty of people who would want to remove the rights of Blacks.

>>8853938
Children are influential, are they not? If you answer yes, then that anon's concerns matter and you are not one to tell them they don't.

>>8853944
[citation needed]

>>8853947
Sexuality is fixed at birth. Telling your kids to be gay does nothing.

>>8853947
>teaching children to be more accepting is bad

>>8853946
>plenty of people
Doubt. Minority. We no longer retroactively remove rights.

>>8853950
>Sexuality is fixed at birth. Telling your kids to be gay does nothing.
LOL, show me the proof honey.

>>8853959
>>8853938

>>8852541

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve motherfuckers.

>>8853964
“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation,”

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

>>8853983
Amazing peer reviewed science!

Almost like there are journals you can buy entry into so you can plant scandalous headlines based on false or misinterpreted data.

>>8853983
If you don't mind, if you could take a stab at squaring that away with these few, random, studies I would appreciate it!

Genetic Evidence of Homosexuality:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

http://archive.is/y64OH

https://www.advocate.com/health/2015/10/09/study-dna-identical-twins-can-reveal-whos-gay

http://archive.is/GuptB

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

http://archive.is/PSmzQ

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/research.points.to.genetic.element.in.homosexuality/35856.htm

Straight males carry gay genes:

http://chaladze.com/files/publications/Chaladze2016ASB.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

Fecundity increases in female relatives of male homosexuals:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051088

https://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

http://archive.is/32sQz

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers:

http://archive.is/g3lal

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

http://archive.is/MALR3

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

Female relatives of gay men have 1.3x as many children:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract

Androgen receptor gene linked to XQ28

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGEA11

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

http://archive.is/E3my1

>>8853994
>>8853996
lol so salty

>>8853983
Stopped reading at Paul McHugh, because I knew what followed would be an editorial disguised as science. And it's in the non-peer reviewed New Atlantis, so that matches up.

>>8854013
There's no "winning" with you attack gays is there? Again, I hate how you're all put on a pedestal as if you are the ideal example of what is truly means to be a perfect human being and you are not responsible for anything that happens to you in life. It can always be explained away by an attack list of linked articles.

Gay marriage means easier access to kids and gays make up 75% of child predators despite only being 2% of the population

>>8854013
You might as well give me all your links then so I can stop being "misinformed" about my own sexuality. Please, send them my way. Show me how innocent I really am in being gay.

File: Cheadlenigga.jpg (96KB, 758x1017px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 758x1017px

Yee

>>8854013
https://thinkprogress.org/conservatives-seize-on-hugely-flawed-study-about-same-sex-parents-bd797734bf40

http://archive.is/aym23

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/07/12/new_gay_parenting_study_is_a_dishonest_assault_on_lgbtq_families.html

http://archive.is/o3DYW

>>8854025

[citation needed] also again as I have stated many times in this thread gays are 7% of millennials.

>>8854038

Science on gays as parents:

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false

File: rolling-stone-hang-them.png (547KB, 648x549px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 648x549px

>>8852541
i hate myself and the world tbhh i would be ok if society turned against gays big time and i got sent to a camp for degeneracy.

Statistics on gays and marriage:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/

http://archive.is/g0kHt

http://www.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

http://archive.is/MlP5k

https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-gay-men-in-the-US-are-in-a-long-term-relationship-and-how-does-this-compare-to-the-general-population

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx

Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples 1988:

http://www.buddybuddy.com/survey.html

https://www.queerty.com/monogamy-making-comeback-among-younger-gay-couples-study-finds-20160922

http://archive.is/vobIA

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>8854025
why do the numbers get bigger every time someone rolls out this statistic

>>8854055

at least you are honest

7% of millennials are gay:

https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PRRI-Millennials-Web-FINAL.pdf

Millennials draw no distinctions between discrimination protections that should be afforded gay and lesbian people, on the one hand, and transgender people on the other. More than seven in ten (73%) millennials support legal protections against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing for gay and lesbian people. A nearly identical number (72%) of millennials say they favor these same protections for transgender people.

While no significant racial or gender differences exist on either question, there are large religious divides in support for expanding nondiscrimination legislation. Roughly eight in ten black Protestant (80%), white Catholic (82%), Hispanic Catholic (81%), religiously unaffiliated (83%), and white mainline Protestant millennials (78%) favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. About two-thirds (66%) of Hispanic Protestant millennials also favor such laws. White evangelical Protestants are closely divided on this issue, with a slim majority (51%) favoring laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination, and 47% opposing them. Among religious groups, the pattern of opinion about non-discrimination legislation protecting transgender individuals is nearly identical.

http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/Facts_for_Families_Pages/Children_with_Lesbian_Gay_Bisexual_and_Transgender_Parents_92.aspx

File: current-affairs-millennials-are-the-gayest-generation-inamerica-tonic-dailytonic-25524970.png (148KB, 500x655px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 500x655px

>>8854051
>gays are 7% of millennials.

>>8854046
Awesome! I can raise my child without any female influence and it can be just my husband and me. Perfect.

The benefits of gay marriage:


https://www.liveabout.com/the-benefits-of-gay-marriage-1411846

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/gay-marriage-boosts-happiness-health-study-article-1.3053017

http://archive.is/dmO9e

http://theconversation.com/evidence-is-clear-on-the-benefits-of-legalising-same-sex-marriage-82428

http://archive.is/kezfR

A majority (37) states had already legalized gay marriage when the Supreme Court decided to legalize it:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html

Does conversion therapy work:


http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-whether-conversion-therapy-can-alter-sexual-orientation-without-causing-harm/

http://www.newsweek.com/life-and-death-jewish-exgay-therapy-organization-406898

http://archive.is/TZ3kj <this article is a particularly funny read about an ex gay retreat

http://www.metroweekly.com/2017/05/nevada-becomes-8th-state-ban-conversion-therapy/

http://archive.is/QXhhE

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170829/advocates-celebrate-passage-of-ri-ban-on-conversion-therapy

http://archive.is/l6DOP

Are gays more likely to be pedophiles?


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts%5Fmolestation.html

http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2010/09/18/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof

http://archive.is/ztjf2

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2009/06/05/a-major-study-of-child-abuse-and-homosexuality-revisited/

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/religious-rights-top-anti-gay-researcher-says-he-was-attracted-to-men-as-a-boy/politics/2012/05/16/39681

>>8854057
Cool, I can get married and only 62% of straight people would be happy for me. That's great, thanks.

HIV information:


https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/03/scientists-have-eliminated-hiv-in-mice-using-crispr/

http://archive.is/8yiqT

White gays experience a dramatic decline in new HIV infections:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3349342/HIV-infections-fall-20-decade-NOT-gay-bisexual-men-living-South.html

http://archive.is/NdR25

We don’t know who Patient Zero for HIV was:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37767179

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7627/full/nature19827.html?foxtrotcallback=true

HIV infection rate in the US falls by a third in a decade

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28389275''

http://archive.is/vNjZq

UK HIV decrease:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unaids-hiv-infection-rate-down-33-percent-worldwide-since-2001/

http://archive.is/Qdllj

AU HIV decease:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hiv-infections-in-nsw-have-fallen-to-their-lowest-levels-except-for-one-group-of-people/news-story/9dc7261df2978e0091ad6739ff106d43

http://archive.is/Qdllj

HIV came from Haiti to New York

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7068574.stm

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7627/full/nature19827.html

Advances in reproduction aid gays potentially:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-3-parent-dna-baby-born-rare-disease/

http://archive.is/UGIsr

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/babies-from-bone-marrow

http://archive.is/8x2FO

Businesses cannot be coerced into producing anti-gay messages:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

http://archive.is/1iwE5

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-bakery-s-refusal-of-anti-gay-marriage-cake-not-discrimination-1.3165211

http://archive.is/xtLSU

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/projects/new-protection

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

http://archive.is/Rga44

Churches in Europe blessing same sex celebrants:

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/04/britains-first-same-sex-marriage-celebrated-in-a-scottish-church/

http://archive.is/5p3DJ

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/08/25/17/italian-protestant-church-says-i-do-to-gay-blessings

http://archive.is/qSJ0j

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/church-takes-its-first-gay-wedding-booking-1-8737310

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/claims-parishioners-were-screamed-at-by-antisamesex-marriage-priest-who-demanded-his-flock-all-vote-no/news-story/b800c05f41b435322e87ab15faaf8adc

http://archive.is/j1PMe
Church attendance is declining:

https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/

http://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

>>8854065
I guess I should find a husband then before I get too ugly and fat huh? Yay societal pressure!

File: AnalSex.png (564KB, 1302x1172px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1302x1172px

Straight couples have anal sex too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

http://archive.is/nLiao

>>8854090

There are plenty of desperate ugly fat older gay men. The average age of a gay man marrying was around 43 IIRC.

>>8854070
Guess I better just learn to live with the uneasiness of my sexuality then!
>>8854073
Phew, glad I won't be considered a paedo now!
>>8854078
Oh fuck yes! I can't wait to fuck on truvada now and be carefree of hiv!
>>8854088
Good, fuck the religious! Fuck everyone who isn't gay.
>>8854091
Thank god, I was so worried I'd be the only one putting markers up my ass.

>>8854112
Now Truvada is for kids too:

https://www.drugs.com/news/truvada-helped-protect-gay-teen-males-hiv-66905.html

>>8854098
I'm just so glad none of this is my fault. Phew. You really cleared that up for me, thanks. All of my worries were forced on me from bigoted straight white males. We should fucking kill them all, shouldn't we?

>>8854098
And fuck you for thinking I want a fat old man as my husband you fucking fuck.

>>8854117
We allow birth control for minors and give vaccines for minors, why not truvada? I have no problem with this tbqh.

>>8854117
Also: "Adherence was an issue among these young patients. Levels of the drug sufficient to prevent HIV infection were found in 54 percent of the teens by week four; 49 percent by week 12; 28 percent by week 24; and 22 percent by week 48."

That's not good statistics.

>>8854132
I don't either, I just bet this will lead to a religious right backlash.

>>8854145
Unless they have to provide it through their business insurance, they can't do shit about it. If they were forced to provide it, like the birth control case, then I can see an argument there. (Argument, not cause to say no.)

>>8854154
What if your employers mandate Truvada for children of employees? That would be pretty controversial.

Looked it up and so far no Truvada controversy yet.

>>8854160
Obamacare makes you pay for women's health services, regardless of age. I think THAT is controversial.

>>8854170
Harder to fuck over women than gay men.

>>8854168
Would you do the injectable truvada once it's legal? Or would you just be as responsible without it?

>>8854176

I don't take it in any form.

But really, link anon, what I am responsible for if nothing that I know of is my fault? Is it stupid of me to fault gays for anything?

>>8854197
Ignorance is not an excuse for intolerance.

>>8854211
I don't know what you mean by that statement.

>>8854058
Despite only being 3% of the population, gays make up 60% of all child abuse cases. This is a fact

>>8854226
What exactly was your earlier point? Could you reframe it.

>>8854235
7% of millennials are gay. You need to cite your source.

>>8854211
I don't think I'm intolerant. I'm gay and that pains me to write it out. I've heard and read so many statistics that gays are paedos, hurt children, erode tradition, spread disease, and are bad people and I can see how that's true. Then you bombard with all these links saying "Hey now, that's not true." I don't see how I can just blatantly accept what you share as fact without resistance.

>>8854250
Read the links and make your own judgement.


>Churches, synagogues openly defy Trump’s immigration crackdown

https://archive.is/4LlTe

>Southern Baptists Vote to Support Refugee Resettlement After Trump Says to Ban All Muslim Immigration

https://archive.is/wWCs6

>Church network offers sanctuary to illegal immigrants to avoid deportation

https://archive.is/rJVmD

>Churches Offer Sanctuary To Immigrants Facing Deportation

https://archive.is/5ezZm

>Arizona Pastor Explains Why His Church Decided to Shelter Illegal Immigrants

https://archive.is/uRUoI

>Romney’s Tough Immigration View Is at Odds With His Church

https://archive.is/HnQw2

Religion is not the problem; the people who use religion as a means of creating scapegoats are.

File: GayWorldLegal.png (232KB, 1272x880px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1272x880px

People have an agenda to prevent gays from having rights. The church looks impotent if it teaches that gay sex is sinful and yet gays can marry and adopt kids contrary to church teaching. Of course they would fund people to say that we are bad. I am not saying gays don't have higher rates of HIV or more sexual partners or anything like that. I am saying the best course of action to reduce those things is to allow us to live openly, marry, and raise children like everyone else rather than live in the shadows. Do you really want to live in the shadows?

>>8854266
So you're basically saying that those issues do happen in the gay "community" but not solely exclusive to gays? (If I understand you correctly.)

>Religion is not the problem; the people who use religion as a means of creating scapegoats are.
This seems like it belongs on /pol/ rather than here, so I'll avoid discussing it. But I can see what you mean. Are you basically just saying that gays are being vilified by christcucks for their own heteronormative agenda?

>>8854287
A lot of the issues apply to men in general and are not specific to gays.

Yes. Christians benefit from having a group they can claim is worse than them and therefore should have less rights. Makes them have the moral high horse.

>>8854275
Oh, I didn't see this, I probably answered my own questions by reading this...
>>8854287

And what if things do not improve by living in the light and being out and open and without the constraints of the various forms of oppression?

>>8854293
They already are.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/14/married-same-sex-couples-are-happier-study-finds.html

HIV infection rate in the US falls by a third in a decade

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28389275''

http://archive.is/vNjZq

UK HIV decrease:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unaids-hiv-infection-rate-down-33-percent-worldwide-since-2001/

http://archive.is/Qdllj

AU HIV decease:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hiv-infections-in-nsw-have-fallen-to-their-lowest-levels-except-for-one-group-of-people/news-story/9dc7261df2978e0091ad6739ff106d43

http://archive.is/Qdllj

>>8854299
So I just need to dispel these misconceptions that I have?
Also, why do you have all these links on hand, if you don't mind me asking?

>>8854312
I have them saved because I have used them so many times.

>>8854316
Is it your hobby or something or do you research this stuff for a certain reason other than informing 4chan?

File: toronto-pride-parade-20160703.jpg (100KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 620x349px

>>8854275
the problem is most gays are highly disturbed and ideological, first it was marriage, then sex changes, then 72 genders and now they have child drag queens and gay pride is a massive, inescapable, months long marketing event, like christmas for buttsex. i'm worried these people will never be satisfied, even after they subvert the whole of society and debase western civilisation. They have grown far too powerful.

>>8854318
Just part of my 4chan use. Not an agenda or paid.

>>8854322
most gays are highly disturbed

[citation needed]

I am not going to defend 72 genders but understand that is mostly women who are into that.

I don't really mind child drag queens. They are already very fem anyways and they probably enjoy the hell out of it. I don't think it is great for kids to be in hyper-sexualized environments for most kids but for super fem gay kids with an artistic bent they would already gravitate that way so at least the parents are supervising them and clearly present at all times. I would be 100% satisfied if being gay were covered under the Civil Rights Act. Then I would have nothing more to ask for.

>>8854331
>Just part of my 4chan use. Not an agenda or paid.
Fair enough.
>Then I would have nothing more to ask for.
Are you sure you wouldn't advocate for anything else?
Where do you draw the line, as opposed to other "gay agenda" activists?

>>8854347
Nope. I draw the line at enshrining gender identity (federally) in the law without better evidence of it.

That said including gays in the Civil Rights Act would be huge and was also something openly supported by Donald Trump in a 200 interview:

Why should gays and lesbians be interested in you as a presidential candidate?

I grew up in New York City, a town with different races, religions, and peoples. It breeds tolerance. In all truth, I don’t care whether or not a person is gay. I judge people based on their capability, honesty, and merit. Being in the entertainment business — that is, owning casinos and … several large beauty pageants — I’ve worked with many gay people. I have met some tough, talented, capable, terrific people. Their lifestyle is of no interest to me.

Would we see gay people in a Trump administration?

I would want the best and brightest. Sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don't go into government. I’d want to change that.

What would you do to combat antigay prejudice?

I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair. I actually suggested this first, and now I see [Democratic presidential candidate] Bill Bradley has jumped on the bandwagon and is claiming the idea as his own. [A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act that would have included protections on the basis of sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1970s. — Ed.]

http://archive.is/hNJc1

>>8854362
That said, I think transgender visibility is a brilliant strategy politically at conflating sex and sexual orientation more directly making it seem odd that the Civil Rights Act covers sex in terms of women but not trans women. Eventually the courts will have to deal with that argument formally.

>>8854365
It does not seem Trump is going to change any law to help benefit gays, just going off his track record so far and what is important to his agenda.
Trannies deserve nothing but to be reminded that what they are doing is a disgrace to the human body.

>>8854373
I am not counting on Trump I am counting on the Supreme Court at this point. Unless you can pass a law with a 50 person majority vote in the Senate there will be very few non-mandatory spending bills passed anytime soon of any sort, especially controversial social policy.

This case, or something similar is likely to appear before the Supreme Court soon:

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/seventh-circuit-court-says-sexual-orientation-is-a-protected-classseventh-circui.html

The issue is whether gay people and transgender people are covered by the Civil Rights Act including sex as a protected class. Many evangelical Christians deeply fear this happening because then they could no longer use us as a scapegoat.

>>8854388
Sex or sexuality?

>>8854403
The law explicitly covers sex. The issue is considering the precedent is that violating expected sex stereotypes is covered under the law so how can you say that gay people are not being discriminated against for not conforming to expect gender roles, and therefore this is prohibited sex discrimination.

Including sexuality as closely related to sex is not that big a logical stretch:

https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D04-04/C:15-1720:J:Flaum:con:T:fnOp:N:1942256:S:0

Key among those decisions are Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Price Water- house held that the practice of gender stereotyping falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination, and Oncale clarified that it makes no difference if the sex of the harasser is (or is not) the same as the sex of the victim.

Our panel frankly acknowledged how difficult it is “to extricate the gender nonconformity claims from the sexual orientation claims.” 830 F.3d at 709. That effort, it commented, has led to a “confused hodge-podge of cases.” Id. at 711. It also noted that “all gay, lesbian and bisexual persons fail to comply with the sine qua non of gender stereotypes—that all men should form intimate relationships only with women, and all women should form intimate relationships only with men.”

As the panel noted, it creates “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.” 830 F.3d at 714. Finally, the panel highlighted the sharp tension between a rule that fails to recognize that discrimination on the basis of the sex with whom a person associates is a form of sex discrimina- tion, and the rule, recognized since Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), that discrimination on the basis of the race with whom a person associates is a form of racial discrimination.

>>8853982
Falling for Jewcreation Origin.

>>8854445
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/09/father-mychal-judge-was-a-9-11-hero-could-he-also-become-the-first-gay-saint.html

http://archive.is/vPXm1

>>8852755
Recruitment and validation for being an ageing AGP
Parents get attention

>>8854450
Stop believing in mythical saints.

>>8852737
>this is what white, male Americans actually believe

>>8852853
This. Beef tastes better after receiving a few years worth of my daily protein injections

>>8852541
Same-sex marriage will destroy society tho, do the right thing and vote against it.

File: tinfoil cap.jpg (9KB, 240x198px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x198px

>>8852755
White genocide, what else.