Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I want one good reason that being gay is ok
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 451 of 510 (124216)
07-13-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 3:55 PM


Re: I want one good reason that having sex is ok
riVeRrat writes:
Saviourmachine writes:
I want one good reason that having sex is ok. Yes, that's enough.
Start your own thread, but you are getting close.
I'm unable to justify having sex on moral grounds. Is having kids right? Is getting satisfied right? I don't know how the sex thing came involved into moral issues, but that seems not right to me.
Morality is about treating somebody else as yourself isn't it? To love your neighbour.
To accept their love for each other, there are not only that two people happy, but you too. In stead of being uncomfortable when others are caressing, you will be joyful, or at least, in peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 3:55 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 452 of 510 (124360)
07-14-2004 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:05 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So we should condemn not only gay people but also people born sterile as well as those who choose to sterilize themselves (sterilization is the most common form of birth control) as well as those who are sterilized for other reasons (hysterectomy, orchiectomy) as well as women who have gone through menopause.
Because having gay sex is a choice, being sterile is not.
Having a vasectomy in order to ensure sterility and thus have perfect birth control isn't a choice? Having one's tubes tied in order to achieve sterility and thus have perfect birth control isn't a choice? Sterlization is the most common form of birth control in the US.
And let's not forget that the most common form of sex is oral sex...precisely because it cannot lead to pregnancy.
So you're saying that we should condemn the most common form of birth control and the most common form of sex because it is chosen specifically not to lead to pregnancy?
So if it isn't a sin to choose to have oral sex, why is it a sin to choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?
quote:
quote:
What on earth does this have to do with anything? You act as if gay people don't also want to have children. What is the difference between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple when it comes to reproduction?
I need to explain the difference to you?
Yes.
quote:
quote:
Except people like you then come in and complain that they're unfit to be parents for the simple reason that they're gay.
With good reason.
Name one. Name one specific reason why gay people don't make good parents.
quote:
California, just declared a woman the father of a child who came from the other woman, and they had a "divorce"
We need stuff like this?
Semantics? You're "good reason" is a semantical one? Because the legal is system is stuck on the nonsensical idea that the parents of a child must necessarily be "mother" and "father" as opposed to "mother" and "mother," that's the "good reason" children shouldn't be raised in a loving home by gay parents? Because you are incapable of understanding "marriage" as "the union of two people" and thus the dissolution of that civil contract being called a "divorce," children should be raised in orphanages rather than being adopted by loving gay parents?
That's your "good reason"? You don't like the words?
quote:
Or do we need a separation to clarify things.
"Separate but equal" is unconstitutional and functionally impossible.
It's very simple: The people who raise a children are called "parents." If the "parent" happens to be a woman, then that parent is a "mother." If the "parent" happens to be a man, then that parent is a "father." The idea that two parents of the same child must necessarily be "mother" and "father" is not inherent. This is necessarily true when we allowed people who were not the biological progenitors of the child to be considered "parents." If A and B can be the "parents" produced by X and Y, what difference does it make what sex A and B are?
quote:
quote:
It is very difficult to walk down the street while engaging in oral sex.
You seem to have confused "holding hands" with sex.
Listen, I really don't need you to explain to me what I saw with my own eyes.
But seeing as you have refused to explain it, we are forced to explain it for ourselves. Why don't you tell us what you saw? Be explicit.
Then explain how that is any different from what the straights do.
quote:
I grew up in NYC, I have seen a lot.
Honey-lamb, I am sure I've seen more than you.
quote:
quote:
You seem to have a different standard regarding heterosexual displays of sexual activity in public from homosexual ones. If a man grinds his crotch into the ass of his girlfriend while wrapping his arms around her and not-so-subtly caressing her breasts while standing in line for the movies, he's just being youthful and playful and maybe just a little too eager but nothing to be that upset over.
No, I don't agree with that either.
But I don't see you declaring all heterosexual activity to be offensive in the eyes of god.
I don't see you declaring all heterosexuals to be imminent dangers to children and should be prevented from raising them out of fear for the child's safety and well-being.
I don't see you fighting for laws to prevent the legal recognition of mixed-sex marriage.
Why is it that the only time you seem to get upset is when gay people do it?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:05 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 453 of 510 (124362)
07-14-2004 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:06 PM


Re: Finally, I've been waiting for this to get approved.
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
Pay attention to the thread
I did...and you didn't. That's why I asked you to explain to me the explicit ways in which being gay harms somebody else in a way that being straight does not.
So far, you have avoided it at all costs.
But I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel you have given me an explicit list, then indulge me by repeating it. It won't take you any time.
Why do you hesitate? What's holding you back? Speak up! Out with it, already!

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:06 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 454 of 510 (124369)
07-14-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:18 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
Please take my words at face value.
I do. That's the problem. You seem to think that when you say something, we shouldn't actually take it to mean what it means. When you say that gay people are engaging in sin, you didn't really mean sin such as the thing that will cause the one committing the sin to go to hell. When you say you "love" gay people, we're supposed to ignore your direct statement that you would vote against legislation that would legally confirm that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, will be treated equally under the law.
quote:
I don't like to judge people
And yet, you do. You've done nothing but judge people from the moment you got here:
Message 188 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:
Thats imature thinking.
Message 137 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:
So being Gay goes directly against the will of God, and all the teachings of the Bible.
Being Gay is also hypocritical.
So being that it is against the law of nature, and against Gods will, I would say its a bad idea.
Message 217 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:
Dude get help fast.
Message 28 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread:
Why is it that you get so angry when someone trys to share the truth with you? Is it that much of a problem for you?
Message 29 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread:
I also never assumed anything, but by your defensive reaction, I wonder.
Message 40 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread:
But too bad because they are my beliefs and not yours, no need to get angry.
Message 88 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread:
Anyway I'm sure rhain is going to write me a book tonight, so I better go study the Bible.
Message 149 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread:
I hope reality smacks you in the face. Because I think your awesome.
I pray for it, seriously.
Message 152 of the "Take the Atheist Challenge!!!" thread (and I love this one because this is your entire post):
You little tiny nothing, lmao. I can't believe you just tried to explain the start of the universe. Like you could.
Don't feel bad, I am nothing with you.
Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread:
You won't reveal yourself, because you are afraid I might get to the bottom of something. You are afraid of the truth? How would I know, you won't tell me. Babble.
Enough of that thread.
Message 157 of the "Religion in Government" thread:
They should state their real reason for not wanting to have anything to do with God, rather than making up lies.
I think that's enough.
Oh, what the hell. One last one:
Message 166 of the "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:
For you, "if" he does exsist, then you will find out
Telling somebody he's going to go to hell isn't exactly a non-judgemental act.
Message 142 of the "Religion in Government" thread:
Acting like a wise guy will not get you into the gates of heaven either.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say you don't like to judge when pretty much everything that has come out of your mouth has been nothing but invective and scorn?
quote:
quote:
Tell us what your standard of acceptance is so that we can try to meet it.
What would it take for you to say that gay sex is OK?
Even if God came down and said it, I would still not think it was ok.
Then what on earth are you doing trolling as if you could accept it if someone just gave you a good reason? If you won't accept god's authority that it isn't sin, what else is there to convince you?
quote:
What would it take for me to think it was ok, I don't know, thats why I am asking.
But you're completely missing the point: You know that there isn't anything that could convince you. If you won't accept god's opinion on the subject, the final arbiter on what is good and what is evil, what else could possibly suit you?
quote:
I don't want to hurt other peoples feelings,
Everything you have done here shows that statement to be a lie.
quote:
I want to find out if I am doing something wrong or inhumane by feeling this way.
And the overwhelming response to you has been yes, you are doing something wrong and inhumane by feeling that way.
But if you won't take our word for it and you won't take god's word for it, what else is left?
quote:
I am looking to better myself.
So get off your duff and do it. Make yourself a better person by rendering unto Caesar that which is due Caesar. Support equal treatment under the law for everyone, including those who you find to be abomination in the eye's of your god.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:18 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 455 of 510 (124372)
07-14-2004 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:24 PM


riVeRraT responds to coragyps:
quote:
Yes I have, gay men cannot reproduce.
But neither can sterile people.
So if sterile people (who come in both born-that-way and chose-that-way flavors) aren't sinning when they have sex because they cannot reproduce, why are you picking on gay people?
quote:
Gay woman cannot reproduce without outside help.
Neither can a woman who has had her tubes tied.
Why aren't you picking on her?
quote:
Do animals that are gay have children?
Yes.
Depending upon the species, they will assist in the raising of their sibling's children or adopt the children of others.
quote:
If they don't couldn't we then say that gay couples having children is unatural?
I thought you weren't going to use the "animals don't do it, therefore it's wrong for humans to do it" argument:
Message 1
I will start off with some examples that we have already gone over and why you can't use them.
...
#2 Animal kingdom, animals in the wild are gay, so its ok for us to be gay. Not a good reason either, as animals also rape, steal and kill, thats ok for them, but not for us. So we cannot compare our lifestyle to the animal kingdom.
So now that you know that gay animals do reproduce in the same way that humans do, are you now going to say that it's natural and therefore not "bad" for humans to be gay?
quote:
I am not claiming this
Then why did you bring it up?
If it truly meant absolutely nothing to you, why did you bring it up?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:24 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 456 of 510 (124373)
07-14-2004 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:25 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
Smoking pot, raping, and gay sex, all affect other people, differently.
What part of differently didn't you understand?
The part where you said it.
You see, you didn't say that different activities have different results. Instead, you simply compared the two activities which necessarily means that you think they have something in common rather than you think that they are different.
Ergo, since you think smoking pot and rape are bad things because they harm others, then comparing them to gay sex necessarily means that you think gay sex is a bad thing because it harms others.
What you have failed to do is explain how gay sex harms anybody else any more than straight sex does.
And then there is the part where you understood it.
That is, if smoking pot, rape, and gay sex all affect other people in different ways, what on earth were you doing trying to compare them? If they are different, then they cannot be comparable.
So which is it? Do smoking pot/rape have something in common with gay sex or do they not? If they do, what is it? What do smoking pot/rape have in common with gay sex?
Be specific.
Otherwise, what on earth was the point of bringing them up?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:25 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 457 of 510 (124375)
07-14-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:26 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So if you're going to whine about gay sex, why aren't you whining about straight sex?
Because thats another topic.
Incorrect. They're the same topic. You see, there isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't do. Therefore, if you're going to condemn gay sex, you're condemning straight sex, too.
But since you don't condemn heterosexuality, in and of itself, then you are being disingenuous at best in your condemnation of homosexuality.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:26 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 458 of 510 (124378)
07-14-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:37 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Only in the most simplistic way of "a choice." And given that the sex drive is a biological urge, it isn't really accurate to call it a "choice." Most human beings will have sex.
Some will not have sex based on SOME of the same reasons that cause people to be gay.
In other words, they simply are asexual. They didn't choose to be that way...they just are.
quote:
Some people have choosen not to have sex.
But gay people didn't choose to be gay.
And if you allow straight people to have sex, then you must allow gay people to have sex. That's what equality means.
quote:
quote:
A person can be gay and never have sex just as someone can be straight and never have sex.
Right, then that person is forced into a lifestyle that includes rejecting what they truely desire.
"Lifestyle"? What is this "lifestyle"?
And what you are suggesting is physically impossible. Why on earth would someone engage in something they find to be physically repulsive and do it over and over and over, actively seek it out, and loudly proclaim that they do not have any regret or guilt or shame over it if it wasn't what they truly desired?
Were back to a previous question of mine:
How many times would you need to fellate me before you came to like it and became eager to do it again?
quote:
Lets not dwell on the word lifestyle,
No, we have to. Your use of it indicates you have a fundamental misunderstanding of human sexuality. The sex drive is not a "lifestyle" any more than being black or male or blind or tall is a "llifestyle."
quote:
I mean nothing bad by it.
Yes, you do. You mean to indicate that being gay is something that people choose out of some psychological illness.
Why else would you compare gay people to murderers, rapists, and thieves?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:37 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 459 of 510 (124380)
07-14-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:41 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to actually eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that god was lying to them regarding the consequences of eating from the tree.
Oh, you mean she got tricked.
How on earth was she tricked? God said they would die. The serpent said god was lying; instead they would become as gods.
Eve ate, didn't die, and became as god.
So since what the serpent said came true down to the letter, how on earth was she tricked?
quote:
quote:
If you have a priceless Mhing vase you do not wish broken, do you leave it on a low, rickety pedestal with a toddler in the room? Even if you tell the toddler, "Don't touch"? Are you really going to be surprised to hear a crash coming from the room and the vase broken? Do you really blame the toddler or do you kick yourself for putting a delicate item where an innocent baby who doesn't know any better can get at it?
If I created the the baby and wanted to give it true free will, I would do that.
But the baby doesn't understand. That's what "innocent" means.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which do you choose? You have free will. You're an adult. You have control over your destiny. So which is it? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Why do you hesitate? What are you waiting for?
quote:
Without the tree, we would not have free will, we would just be robots.
Incorrect. They had every control over their actions. They didn't have to do anything. Nobody told them to eat from the tree. They simply had their misconceptions from a lying god corrected. After all, they were sinning every day of their lives from running around naked. They could have worn clothing if they wanted to.
Adam and Eve weren't stupid. They were innocent. Not knowing right from wrong does not mean one doesn't have free will.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:41 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 460 of 510 (124381)
07-14-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:42 PM


Re: Let's see if we can go a little further.
riVeRraT responds to me but doesn't have the decency to include the statement to which he was responding:
[quote]
quote:
quote:
Kind of hard to change the channel for your kids if you happen to not be there.
If you're that worried, why aren't you there?
If you're that worried, why do you have a TV set?
Why have you abdicated your responsibility to raise your children as you see fit onto others?
quote:
Those are 3 very irresponsible statements.
How is it irresponsible to raise your children in the way you see fit and not whine about the existence of things you don't like and aren't required to have and don't need to even encounter if you don't want to?
Some children have peanut allergies. Their parents do not seem to think that people who eat peanuts are horrible people out to harm their children. Instead, they raise their children to be aware of the world around them and to avoid peanuts. They teach them how to say no. They don't allow peanuts in the house.
If you don't like TV, then you will raise your children to be aware of the world around them and to avoid TV. You will teach them how to say no. You will not allow TV in your house.
Why do you seem to think that it's my job to raise your children? Let me do it and I think your children will not turn out the way you want them to.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:42 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 461 of 510 (124382)
07-14-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:45 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What do you think "not one jot or one tittle" means? Jesus was quite adamant about it: Mosaic law shall never be dissolved.
The key words in those verses are "until it is fulfilled"
But all has not been fulfilled. Jesus was talking about the end of the world.
It hasn't happened yet.
Or maybe it has, this is hell, and that's why you're so cranky.
quote:
Once Jesus fulfilled them
But Jesus didn't fulfill them. He hasn't come back. That's what the "all be fulfilled" means: The return of the messiah to usher in the kingdom of heaven. So unless you're saying that this is heaven, then you are still bound by Mosaic law.
quote:
The parable of eye for an eye, was a direct indication that Jesus intended for the law to change after he left.
Incorrect. As was already explained to you, "eye for an eye" is an example of the limit of retribution. An upper bound.
Jesus simply told you that just because you can go to the limit, that doesn't mean you have to. That's what the story of the woman being stoned is about: She did sin and it was suitable for her to be stoned, but Jesus simply pointed out that everybody has sin in their lives and perhaps they should be more worried about their own problems than the shortcomings of others. Let god do the punishing.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:45 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 462 of 510 (124383)
07-14-2004 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:02 PM


riVeRraT responds to crashfrog:
quote:
You earned that leagal contract IMo because you want to start a family.
Incorrect.
If that were the case, we would test people for fertility before allowing them to get married.
If that were the case, non-issue would be grounds for annulment.
If that were the case, we wouldn't allow people in prison who are not allowed conjugal visits to get married.
Therefore, it is obvious to all but the most obstinate observer that getting married has nothing to do with desire to have children.
quote:
quote:
Jesus, RR, if you won't let gay people marry for themselves, let them do it for their children, ok?
I am not convinced that same-sex couples make better parents, than striaght couples.
Why do gay people have to be better parents than straight people in order to be given equal rights? Why can't they just be the same?
It turns out that gay people tend to be better parents, but the question put to you is why you hold gay people to a higher standard than straight people.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 463 of 510 (124384)
07-14-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:20 PM


Re: moral purpose and birth control
riVeRraT writes:
quote:
I am also a hypocrite, because I have had a vascectomy.
So get it reversed.
You chose to have your vasectomy, didn't you? Choose to get it reversed. Get yourself squared away in the eyes of your lord.
If you truly don't detest yourself for this, then why are you picking on gay people?
quote:
This is one of the reasons why I accept gay people, and what they do
No, you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't vote against equal treatment under the law. In fact, you would adamantly demand it.
Instead, you say things like this:
Message 137 of "Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality." thread:
But I love gay people all the same, I just don't agree with what they do, nor will I vote for it a law to do so.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:20 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 464 of 510 (124385)
07-14-2004 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by crashfrog
07-12-2004 6:17 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
Well, I predict that since they're generally higher-income than your average straight parent (due to the monetary cost of overcoming the fertility problem)
This is a common misconception.
On the contrary, gay people earn less than their straight counterparts, even when coupled.
Yes, a couple with no kids has different financial burdens than a couple with kids, but if the couple doesn't earn much in the first place due to discrimination and doesn't gain any of the monetary benefits of marriage (the "marriage tax penalty" is more than offset by the various benefits such as not having to purchase separate insurance policies, the ability to transfer property from one spouse to another for tax purposes, inheritance rights, survivorship rights, etc.), they aren't coming out ahead of the game.
If you have +10 and -3 and I have -5 and +3, I'm still in negative territory and you're still ahead.
quote:
quote:
Your a woman now, did you know that?
Well, a quick check down the front of my pants puts that to the lie. If you really need me to I can scan my junk and email it to you, but that might weird out your wife.
No, what you are missing is riVeRraT's unsubstantiated claim that a woman in California was declared the "father" of a child she had with her lesbian partner.
Therefore, in a complete reversal of logic, he has concluded that if a woman can be a "father," then all fathers must be women.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2004 6:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 3:11 AM Rrhain has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 465 of 510 (124389)
07-14-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Rrhain
07-14-2004 2:53 AM


On the contrary, gay people earn less than their straight counterparts, even when coupled.
Ok, well, I had heard that.
But I had also surmised that since gay couples experience a financial prerequisite for childbearing - sperm donation, adoption fees, surrogating, etc - the average gay couple with children might be a little higher income than the average straight couple with children, seeing as straight people can have kids for free.
I don't have any stats to support that, and if you say it's wrong, I guess I'll believe you, especially if you can explain where I'm going wrong.
I mean, if you have to have n dollars to be gay and have a child, the set of all people with n dollars has a higher number of dollars, on average, then the set of all people with any number of dollars, if n is greater than zero. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2004 2:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2004 4:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024