BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:00 AM

But you see, no one has given me a satisfactory explanation of how "the homosexual lifestyle affects the rights of others". Plain and simple...it doesn't. No one else's rights are being infringed.

And I assure you I have been reading the posts. ;)

Round and round we go...

Cheers, M

P.S. "However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have to get his runnin' shoes on..." OK, I admit it, that did give me a giggle. You could have a point there. Of course, I think it would depend on which streets...;)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM

akenaton

Mr Souter is of course an evangelical Christian and this is what forms his opinions...Not Scottish Nationalism.

I was more concerned with how Mr Souter formed the opinions of the SNP than the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:53 AM

Gosh, you do know absolutely nothing about the SNP don't you my little gastropod?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:14 AM

Very little except that they seem to be happy to take the homophobic Mr Souter's cash.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:41 AM

Homophobia isn't against the law, nor is a deeply held religious belief.
By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!
As with all single issue politics, it's all motivated by selfish self interest.
If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie.
So think of other people having rights before you claim precedence for your point of view to the exclusion of all others.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:00 AM

Er, Right.
Well, if you'll excuse me, things to see, people to do.
Byeee.
Slam.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

Well that snailed him jock....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: harpmolly
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:38 PM

Now wait just a moment, John...

"By what right do people ride rough shod over other people's sincerely held beliefs screaming ME ME ME!" (?).

Are you speaking of the gay rights movement riding roughshod over the beliefs of religious and/or homophobics?

So let's analyze this: Gay people are expected to accept less than full civil equality because their body chemistry/biological makeup causes them to love in a way that runs contrary to others' "deeply held religious beliefs"? I have to respectfully point out again that religion, however deeply held, is not dictated by physiognomy but by tradition, history, and familial indoctrination. A person's religious beliefs may govern their OWN actions and the way they live their lives, but at least in the US (I can't speak for Scotland) the idea is that each citizen is accorded rights regardless of their belief or lack thereof.

So (and I feel like I'm stating this question for the umpteenth time), what gives those with deeply held beliefs the privilege of riding roughshod over the civil rights of gay people? And yet again, whether one believes in God, Allah, Buddha, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, or no higher power at all, how can the marriage of two people who love each other--gay, straight, bi, whatever--possibly weaken or affect his/her own? Good Lord, pretty soon I'm going to be turning to Bill Clinton for a straight answer to that question, because nobody else will give me one. *rolling eyes*

The whole "Gay marriage tramples on the beliefs of the religious" argument makes me furious, I'll admit, because the assumption is that the equality (not to mention happiness and well-being) of gay people is somehow subordinate to the faithful's/homophobic's right to treat them like second-class citizens. Golden Rule, my ass.

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:20 PM

Giok, you say: "If there is such a thing as Homosexual rights, then there must be heterosexual rights, and religious rights, or even the right to disapprove of motherhood and apple pie."

But don't you see, don't you agree, that there are many, many rights that heterosexuals and religios take as a matter of course? All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights.

I suppose it's inevitable that applehood and mother pie are disapproved of somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:05 AM

Ake speweth:

"certainly wont rise to Greg's bait...."

Won't, or can't? Your only virtue as a bigot, Ake, is that
you don't attempt to appeal to the Deity in order to support
your bigotry. Nor, it seems, even to logic. You are, rather, a
humanist bigot, attempting to support your bigotry by claiming
that the 'majority' are bigots like yourself.

"a man so committed to "gay rights" that he felt obliged to decare himself a "hetrosexual" gay rights activist....need I say more?"

I simply am attempting to forestall your picturing me in a lavender
boa, Ake.

However, I'd also assert that I'm with the (your sacred word)
'majority' of those who are in favor of equal rights for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and trans-gendered people, who are themselves 'none of the
above.'

Contrary to the image of the drag queen prancing down the street
in the Gay Pride parade.

"But things like "homosexual animals" and "10% of the human race is
homosexual".......do you think my heid buttons up the back?"

Perhaps not, but I begin to suspect that you might be wearing
knickers 'neath your kilt.

"you can compare books...and things"

Queer-baiting are we now? How trite. I smell a rat.

"However, I think if Don were to appear on the streets of Glasgow and
tell the lads that one in ten of them were homosexual, he might have
to get his runnin' shoes on"

Usually there is something which underlies such violent reactions---
like the truth.

We know well that all too often the most virulent objections to
homosexuality are put forward by those who're later found either
sending signals 'neath the doors of the gents or chasing after
young legislative assistants of the same gender.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:26 AM

Nobody in his right mind would walk up to a group of "lads" in any city, town, or hamlet and say "Ten percent of you are homosexual," unless he had a death wish*. And in any group of ten lads, there may be nobody there who is gay. But in the next group of ten—who knows? The fact (omigod!! There's that word again!!) is that in any sufficiently large gathering of people, somewhere around ten percent (give or take a percentage point) will be homosexual. This is true in Paris, London, Athens, Seattle, Los Angeles, Beijing, Capetown, Alice Springs. . . .

. . . and, yeah verily, in Glasgow.

Don Firth

*I tend to believe that the reaction one would probably get in this theoretical confrontation stems from the rather tenuous grasp a lot of very macho-seeming men actually have on their masculinity. And that's not theoretical. It's sound psychology.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:29 AM

Will you tell them ...or shall I?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:55 AM

Molly and Ebbie    I am still trying to keep this discussion impersonal.....against extreme provocation from Greg and Don :0).

You both say in slightly different literary styles that..."All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights".

Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree.   They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account.

Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate.
These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense.

Oh and just a word for those who get excited about what I wear under my kilt....Only two on Mudcat are privvy to that information and they won't be tellin'...when you're on to a good thing, you keep it to yourself.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:42 AM

You see what happens when you try to point things out in a civilised manner, people start brandishing words like bigot around. How objective is that?
G

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:32 AM

The fact...is that in any sufficiently large gathering of people, somewhere around ten percent (give or take a percentage point) will be homosexual.

I don't think the research has been done widely enough that justifies the term "fact". Maybe the figure is lower, maybe it is higher. Extrapolating from the limited local research that has been done is really a matter of speculation.

In any case talk about percentages is surely pretty irrelevant, either way. If the actual figure was one per cent or twenty per cent, what difference would that make to the rights or wrongs of it all?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:33 AM

Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate.
These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense.


Do they have the right to that contention? "It always has been this way" isn't the same as "it always should be this way", otherwise as others have pointed out, the white majority would contend that it's their right to own black slaves. Others wouuld contend that "it's only natural" for women to be subject to their husbands (and do- many of them on the religious right). Slaveowners did contend that abolition would impact on "the existing rights of the majority", and a million inhabitants of North America died in the ruckus that followed.

I would contend furtthermore that there's no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle", and that the phrase merely indicates an inability to see people as individuals rather than tokens.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:15 AM

Just for the record, despite what Giok and akenaton might lead you to believe, the Scottish National Party are, in their own words, -

a democratic left-of-centre political party committed to Scottish Independence. It aims to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland's full potential as an independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe.

They have, with a few exceptions, an excellent voting record on gay rights.

I'll slip away again before Giok subjects me to more of his "civilised manner".

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:26 AM

"Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree.   They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account.

Many would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate.
These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense." - Akenaton

How is the right to marry, for example, a 'seperate right'? Please don't tell me 'well, they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex', as that is a silly contention, as well as a reminder of the often sad consequences in the past when homosexuals often did marry, in order to appease convention, or to try to overcome their own natures, leading to miserable relationships plagued by sexual disfunction, adulterous behaviours, and marriage breakdown.

What exactly do you think 'the homosexual lifestyle' is? If you are going by the crowd of young men who descend on the gay bars every weekend, some squealing delicately and others flexing their manly biceps, well, that is equivalent to stating that a bar full of drunk and roaring young football fans is 'the heterosexual lifestyle'. There's a lot more to life than where you go and what you do to entertain yourself when you are young.

The real 'homosexual lifestyle' is pretty much like everyone else's: get up, go to work, come home, make dinner, make the kids do homework if you have kids, do housework, walk the dog, on weekends do the yardwork, maintain your property, etc.

You say: "These separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense" but I cannot see how this would be true. What is the impact? How does a same sex marriage in any way affect anyone else's marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:06 AM

Most people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage ...would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account.

As I pointed out earlier, under US Federal law there are distinct financial benefits associated with being legally "married", and this (marriage) is a distinction reserved (also under Federal law) to heterosexual couples. A heterosexual couple married under what is know as "the common law", which is permitted in a minority of states, can also receive these benefits but must jump through a number of hoops to prove that they are "holding themselves out as a couple" rather than just being shacked up together. A married couple must simply provide a copy of the marriage license as proof.

{For those in the discussion who may not follow the distinction, "Federal" means applying to the United States government's laws and regulations and not to those of the states. State law applies only within that particular state and doesn't overrule Federal laws as they refer to Federal benefits. If a couple is married in a state (eg, Massachusetts) or country (eg, Canada) where such is legal, they are still not eligible for Federal benefits.}

So then, the right that homosexual couples are seeking is the same right that married heterosexual couples currently have: the right to receive benefits to which couples are ordinarily entitled.

BTW, did I see a professed atheist use the term "the sanctity of conventional marriage"? That would be sanctity as in sacred? Sacred to whom/Whom?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Greg B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:56 AM

In my experience, there are more civilized, civil, and sanctimonious
bigots around than there are swastika'd skin-heads. It's the ones
who cloak their bigotry in various appeals to the high moral ground
or to science or statistics who are the most insidious and dangerous,
because they manage to gather the weight of law and/or the voting
populace behind them.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM

Demographics of sexual orientation

In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%

The mean across modern surveys is a bit lower than half of the 10% quoted by Don Firth.

That's a fairly good Wikipedia article telling about the difficulties and pitfalls of such type of research. It is interesting to note that even in the same country surveys just one or two decades apart can lead to very different results.

There are data from many more countries than just the USA and the variance of results between countries is comparable to the variance within countries. That makes the generalisation to other countries not yet studied a fairly safe one.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:31 AM

One thing you must realize; if a male is raised by lesbians, there is a real danger that he will grow up to be sexually aroused by women!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: PMB
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:40 AM

Does that mean my mother and father were lesbians?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:45 PM

"ou both say in slightly different literary styles that..."All that homosexuals are demanding is the same rights".

"ost people who believe in the sanctity of conventional marriage to support a conventional family structure would disagree.   They would contend that the homosexuals already have exactly the same rights at present and want separate rights to take their lifestyle into account.

"any would also contend that the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate.
"hese separate right will of course impact on the existing rights of the majority......Its simple common sense." Ake

"Common sense", it is NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM

the homosexual lifestyle can never sit easily beside a strong family structure and should always remain separate

oh - like having a heterosexual couple w/ children automatically means a strong family structure?

bollucks!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

I would pose the question whether there is a handy comparison between divorce rates in hetero couples with children versus "divorce" rates between similarly committed same-sex couples.

By and large the homesexual people I have met in life tend to be kinder, more thoughtful, and more civilized than the heterosexual ones.

Given that sexuality is a private individual right and the practice of it no-one else's business, I fail to see what possible impact honoring same-sex allegiances in marriage could possibly have on heterosexual couples, unless one or the other of said couples were suppressed homosexuals who finally got rid of their suppression. Freedom under the law is really intolerable sometimes, huh?


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:45 PM

"...what possible impact honoring same-sex allegiances in marriage could possibly have on heterosexual couples..."

That is the central thought, Amos, that I have NEVER heard any protester define or defend, only assert. I suspect that it is because they don't have a sensible answer.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM

Same-sex couples' "divorce rates? Extremely different for male-male (very high compared to female-male) and female-female (low, probably even lower than female-male).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM

?? wonder what would happen to the rates when kids factor in.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM

Knowing you, Wolfgang, I have no doubt but that you have studies that support your stats. Would you cite them, please?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:49 PM

D. Symons, The evolution of human sexuality, has a good review of such data.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM

Wolfgang..I take it that no studies have been done in Muslim countries.

Surely if they were taken into the equation the overall results would be quite different?
In his original post, Don was referingto the percentage of homosexual to Hetrosexual worldwide....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:28 PM

If it's mainly down to biology you'd expect that the proportions involved would be pretty consistent in different places and times. On thee other hand,if it's mainly cultural you wouldn't necessarily.

But then it all gets skewed up by other factors, notably predominant social attitudes and the legal situation. If people identified as gay are liable to be persecuted that could be expected to make them a tiny bit reluctant to come out as such in response to surveys.

But the actual figures aren't what matters - either low figures or high figures could equally be used as a basis for either acceptance or persecution. Or for anything in between, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM

The baseline is probably biological, but the numbers in evidence will certainly be being squirreled by cultural suppression or cultural exaggeration. In the post-Victorian US, mostly suppression; in Attic Greece, perhaps cultural exaggeration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM

PDM For the purposes of this discussion, "The homosexual lifestyle" would mean two or more men in a sexual relationship.

It's obvious that no family structure can be built from this type of relationship.

Lesbians on the other hand are quite capable of producing children by IVF.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:36 PM

And gay men are perfectly capable of building families by adoption, thus relieving the over-production practiced in some parts of the world. What's the point?

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:39 PM

McGrath and Amos....Exactly right, as I said further up the page.
"Everyone knows what they say about statistics"

I just wish Don and his posse would stop presenting them as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM

Ah "Gay" foster parents........Thats a completely different can of worms.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:42 PM

It's obvious that no family structure can be built from this type of relationship

So you presume that only functionaly fertile couples can be married? Any couple incapable of producing children between the two of them is an invalid marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: MMario
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:44 PM

It doesn't necessarily have to be adoption - there are quite a few gay men who have biological children.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:58 PM

Akenaten, you still have not explained why you think same sex marriage would have a negative impact on heterosexual marriage.

Many gay men have biological children, either a result of early experiment and/or denial of their orientation, or as a deliberate act of planned parenting with a woman friend, or through adoption.

Since you don't like studies, then anecdotally, I have known, long term, half a dozen homosexual male couples with children. They were perfectly happy normal kids, the parenting was excellent. None of the older boys showed any sign of being homosexual themselves at puberty - they were very interested in girls.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth (computer back in the shop again!)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:24 PM

Wolfgang, I quoted from the Kinsey Reports, so it is not my contention. I recall seeing in his books a chart of percentages of sexual orientation, and on the chart was a diagonal line, running from 7% to 14%, and the text that went with the graphs indicated that the figures indicated roughly—roughly—10%, give or take a couple of percentage points. Some researchers contest his findings, others. I neither support it nor challenge his findings, I merely quoted them. Do with them what you will.

The more recent figures quoted in the Wikipedia article are probably more accurate. 4% to 5% is quite probably about right.

But—that does not alter the civil rights issue.

If only one-tenth of one percent of the human population engages in homosexual activity with other consenting adults of similar orientation, and a particular same-sex couple wishes to be regarded as married in the same way as heterosexual couples—or if twenty percent wish to do so—it's still one helluva stretch to try to claim that allowing them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples in any way "endangers the sanctity of marriage."

The only thing it "endangers" is the sense of propriety of people who are overly concerned with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Don Firth

P. S. It appears to me that those who seem to be most opposed to allowing same-sex couples to marry for "moral" or "endangering the sanctity of marriage" or for economic reasons (insurance coverage, inheritance rights, etc.) are pretty much the same people who object so strenuously to the idea that one out of ten people might be gay. For those who are trying to whittle down the figures, let me point out that if anyone is concerned about some kind of economic impact that same-sex married couples might have, the smaller the percentage, the less the impact.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:04 PM

Yes, Don, you quoted and I have never said anything else.
people who are overly concerned with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Not necessarily true. One could not care at all about that and defend the right of people to do whatever* they want with consenting adults but disagree about homosexual marriage (the position of the German highest court BTW).

Rapaire (many many posts ago, right at the start of the thread) has said what I personally think is the best solution.

*no, surely not whatever, if you recall the German cannibal case who did with the other guy only what that guy wanted too. But that is an extreme case in which I cannot see anyone here defending the "right" of two consenting adults to do whatever they wanted for their sexual arousal.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

"The homosexual lifestyle" would mean two or more men in a sexual relationship.

"Homosexual" suddenly means men only? When did that happen?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:19 PM

Your all clutching at straws.
The example I cited was of two or more men in a sexual relationship. I believe multi -person sexual relationships are much more common among "homos" than "hetros"

Without stooping to "facts and figures",I would think the chances of any of these men having a biological child is less than a snowball's chance in hell.

Nice to see Don beating a retreat over his percentages, the rest of you should follow his example.
Just open your eyes, try to be objective, don't be abusive tae Scotty ....Its easy peasy...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

Don,   I don't object to the idea that one in ten might be homosexual.
I just object to you presenting this idea as incontrovertible fact.

You attempted to scupper my argument early on, by quoting this as fact several times.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

And still I wonder - how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:09 PM

1. Most homosexual males are perfectly capable of fathering a child.

2. Granting the full legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples of either gender is a simple act of humanity and equitable honor among human beings. As far as I can see it has no impact whatsoever on any right or practice outside the immediate individuals who would enjoy the right.

I don't see anyone grasping at straws. Au contraire. Those who are protesting against reactionary thinking are coming from a strong fundamental bulwark of common respect for human beings without regard to their private decisions. This is a decent and compassionate thing to do. It is also a L:OT smarter than promulgating false divisions and promoting discord among humans over petty issues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:36 PM

Ake, you're just being silly.

Let me point out to you that I am not "beating a retreat" as you so quaintly put it. Those were the figures that I had heard early on (in the 1950s) and which most people accepted for some decades. Further research has been done, and Wolfgang provided a link to some information on that research, which I have just read.

When I am presented with new information that is more recent and more authoritative than what I previously heard, I am capable of revising what I hold to be the case.

Are you?

And it's interesting that you consider citing facts and figures as "stooping."

By the way, 5% still scuppers your argument.

All of this still leaves unanswered the question of how same-sex marriage affects the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:05 PM

I'm getting irritated by your repeated misspelling of a simple prefix, Ake. It is , not hetro/em>. I don't think there is such a word as hetro.

"And still I wonder - how does the granting of those rights to homosexuals deny or affect the rights of the Christians or Moslems?"