Homosexual Marriage

[Rationalskeptic]

This topic is devoted to the question: Should we legally recognize gay marriage?

Some people think that gays are bad. Others think that they are not necessarily bad. Some people think that gay marriage is "morally wrong," others think that it is not wrong. Some think that giving gays equal rights will incourage an inferior institution. Others disagree. Some people think that the law should discourage that which they think is morally wrong, even when it does not involve agressing against the rights of others. Others disagree. Some think that there should be no gay marriage because gays are "disgusting." Others find that this does not matter. Some think that making laws protecting gays will add budgetary problems to our state and federal governments, and will hurt the rights of non-gay individuals. Others either disagree that gay marriage does, or that this is important. Some think that gay marriage should not be a legal status because it hurts "marriage." Others think that this is silly.

So what do you think on this controvercy. I have shown you most of what this issue covers. Have a fun debate.

[Euphrates]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

What data?

And if the data exists, why are the children of interracial parents more likely to abuse drugs? Maybe it has more to do with geography than race. Who knows?... you haven't explained it.

Before you go making arguments saying "if we don't allow this, we shouldn't allow that either," you've got a lot more explaining to do. You need to validate the comparison.

So, you've got some work to do. Though I don't expect you to ever get it done (based on experience), I will nontheless offer a further explanation destroying this argument if you are ever able to produce evidence and reasonable analysis. Wouldn't it be nice if we could debate with blinders on? Once we start talking about one specific issue, we can ignore everything else. But that's not how debate works. We have to balance the issues and have a debate with all things being considered all the time. Marriage cannot be discriminatory. It is currently NOT discriminatory (as we've already discussed and you've dropped). Keeping marriage non-discriminatory is vital to what America stands for. Preventing marriage between people of different races would be discriminatory (as I already proved and you dropped). Even if children of interracial marriages are more likely to use drugs, we still have a moral obligation to not have discriminatory public policies. We don't have a discrimination issue with same-sex marriage, so the fact that drug use would increase is enough to tip the scales further in favor of the not legalizing same-sex marriage.

So, in summary, since this seems like your newest war cry, you need to provide the data (sorry if you already did and I missed it) first, then you need to explain why children of interracial parents use more drugs than everyone else, and only after you've done both of those you need to refute my argument.

No data = no argument.
No analysis of the data = no argument.
No refutation of my argument = no argument.

If you can't do all of these three things, concede the point and maybe you can start trying to get some of your credibility back.

[Ooberman]

Marriage cannot be discriminatory. It is currently NOT discriminatory (as we've already discussed and you've dropped). Keeping marriage non-discriminatory is vital to what America stands for. Preventing marriage between people of different races would be discriminatory (as I already proved and you dropped). Even if children of interracial marriages are more likely to use drugs, we still have a moral obligation to not have discriminatory public policies. We don't have a discrimination issue with same-sex marriage, so the fact that drug use would increase is enough to tip the scales further in favor of the not legalizing same-sex marriage.

Maybe you can reiterate your explanation as to why you don't think restricting marriage to only a portion of people able to marry.

As I understand it, you seem to say a person (say, Man A) is born, and at 18 is able to legally marry. Man B, is born, reaches 18 and is legally allowed to marry.

As long as they select someone based on a specific gender.

They are not allowed to marry any one they want (providing it is consensual), but are restricted by gender.

Please explain, because I tried to discuss it when it was mentioned, but the conversation went elsewhere.

Please explain why restricting someone from marrying the person they would like to marry in not discriminatory when it is based on a category: homosexual.

Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

[GIG]

God hates homosexuality.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13, The Holy Bible of Our Lord

[Ooberman]

God hates homosexuality.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13, The Holy Bible of Our Lord

So? This has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Marriage is a human institution, governed by human beings. If God doesn't like gay people, then he doesn't have to marry them in Heaven.

[micatala]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

What data?

I had provided a link and summary of this in Post #318.

Consider http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

Quote:

2.(2008) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."

Drug use is higher for blacks than any other racial group, except for those for people reporting two or more races. By Euphrates criteria, we should forbid interracial marriage since interracial individuals show higher rates of drug abuse.

And if the data exists, why are the children of interracial parents more likely to abuse drugs? Maybe it has more to do with geography than race. Who knows?... you haven't explained it.

These are good questions but don't change the fact that children of interracial couples use drugs at close to twice the rate of the rest of the population. If it increases drug use, you said we should not encourage it. You did not say you had to know why the drug use rates were higher.

I know, you are going to claim you gave an explanation as to why gays use drugs at a higher rate. As I recall, you alluded to them using drugs to heighten the sexual experience. So what. The statistics are the statistics.

Now, could we investiagate why the rates of kids from interracial marriages are higher, sure.

Here is one comment, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... melt29.htm.

Frankfort, the product of a union between his Indonesian mother and Dutch father, says he knew his family would readily accept his new girlfriend. But Seaton's family was another matter.

"I was nervous," said Seaton. "My father has attitude. He carries on about other ethnic and racial groups, particularly black folks and Jews."

So, you can have the same dynamic as others have cited with respect to gays, being in a more stressful situation where society or family members look negatively at you can lead to increased drug usage.

Before you go making arguments saying "if we don't allow this, we shouldn't allow that either," you've got a lot more explaining to do. You need to validate the comparison.

Why should I have to meet your shifting goal posts? You never said we have to know why a lifestyle led to more drug use for us to not encourage it, you just said we should not do it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could debate with blinders on?

If you are applying this to me, your comment is uncalled for and irrelevant to the debate.

Once we start talking about one specific issue, we can ignore everything else. But that's not how debate works. We have to balance the issues and have a debate with all things being considered all the time. Marriage cannot be discriminatory. It is currently NOT discriminatory (as we've already discussed and you've dropped).

You have repeatedly made this claim and given a completely ridiculous argument for it which I have repeatedly debunked. Who really has blinders on here one has to ask.

Keeping marriage non-discriminatory is vital to what America stands for.

Agreed.

Preventing marriage between people of different races would be discriminatory (as I already proved and you dropped).

I agree, preventing interracial marriages would be discriminatory. Have I ever said anything different? Where do you get the false idea I "dropped" this point?

Even if children of interracial marriages are more likely to use drugs, we still have a moral obligation to not have discriminatory public policies.

Agreed. Why don't you be consistent and say the same for gays.

We don't have a discrimination issue with same-sex marriage, so the fact that drug use would increase is enough to tip the scales further in favor of the not legalizing same-sex marriage.

Your position is completely arbirtrary and subjective. You have now changed your position to say that we can ignore your previous argument, at least in the case of interracial marriage, because not discriminating is more important than preventing increased drug use.

I have said all along that we need to take other factors into account, like liberty and being fair under the law. I am glad you seem to now agree with this general principal.

So, your whole argument now rests on somehow showing that preventing interracial marriage is discriminatory but preventing gay marriage is not. As I have explained ad nauseum, preventing two consenting adults from forming a marriage simply because they are of the same sex and treating this marriage equally under the law is a violation of their freedom to pursue happiness.

So, in summary, since this seems like your newest war cry, you need to provide the data (sorry if you already did and I missed it) first, then you need to explain why children of interracial parents use more drugs than everyone else, and only after you've done both of those you need to refute my argument.

Well, I think the first two, as well as the third. Even if you don't agree, you again are not the arbiter of the debate. I have offered a counter-argument, and I have offered quite a number of Supreme Court cases, not to mention federal court cases specifically involving gay marriage which show your contention that the status quo is not discriminatory does not hold water.

[Euphrates]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

What data?

I had provided a link and summary of this in Post #318.

Consider http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

Quote:

2.(2008) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."

Drug use is higher for blacks than any other racial group, except for those for people reporting two or more races. By Euphrates criteria, we should forbid interracial marriage since interracial individuals show higher rates of drug abuse.

Ok, here's one problem: the data doesn't talk specifically about children of interracial parents. It talks about individuals reporting more than one race, which isn't the same. A half-asian and half-white man marries a half-asian and half-white woman and their children aren't the children of interracial parents, but they would identify as having more than once race.

And if the data exists, why are the children of interracial parents more likely to abuse drugs? Maybe it has more to do with geography than race. Who knows?... you haven't explained it.

These are good questions but don't change the fact that children of interracial couples use drugs at close to twice the rate of the rest of the population.

Read as: "No comment."

If it increases drug use, you said we should not encourage it. You did not say you had to know why the drug use rates were higher.

Those are your blinders talking. Take them off and try to see the whole picture. The government should not encourage something that is harmful. Drugs are harmful, but enacting discriminatory policies is a precedent that is also harmful. You have to look at everything on balance. Would lowering drug use by a few percentage points be worth forbidding marriage between individuals of different races? Do you want to make that argument?

I know, you are going to claim you gave an explanation as to why gays use drugs at a higher rate. As I recall, you alluded to them using drugs to heighten the sexual experience. So what. The statistics are the statistics.

And the statistics don't mean anything without meaningful analysis and an argument giving the statistics relevance. You have given no analysis.

Are you claiming that there is a causal link between having interracial parents and drug use? Or are you just pointing at a correlation? If you are suggesting causation, you haven't identified the cause (which, as I previously implied, could be only coincidentally related to race or ethnicity).

Once we start talking about one specific issue, we can ignore everything else. But that's not how debate works. We have to balance the issues and have a debate with all things being considered all the time. Marriage cannot be discriminatory. It is currently NOT discriminatory (as we've already discussed and you've dropped).

You have repeatedly made this claim and given a completely ridiculous argument for it which I have repeatedly debunked. Who really has blinders on here one has to ask.

This is why this debate has been over and you're just stalling. Calling it "ridiculous" is as substantive as a 5 year old's "Nuh-uh." In fact, if you look back, I actually proved that the status quo is not "discriminatory" and you conceded the point, only to shift into a "but it's still not fair" position. But the facts don't seem to phase you. Add this to the list of times you've been objectively wrong.

Your position is completely arbirtrary and subjective. You have now changed your position to say that we can ignore your previous argument, at least in the case of interracial marriage, because not discriminating is more important than preventing increased drug use.

My position has always been based on doing what is best for society. I haven't shifted or changed my position.

As I have explained ad nauseum, preventing two consenting adults from forming a marriage simply because they are of the same sex and treating this marriage equally under the law is a violation of their freedom to pursue happiness.

Why is it a violation of their freedom to pursue happiness? Can they not be in a relationship?

It isn't the government's job to make sure everyone can pursue whatever makes them happy. Can I give you some examples without you screaming RED-HERRING? The government doesn't allow pedophiles to have sexual relationships with children, even thought it would make the pedophiles very happy. The government doesn't allow siblings to marry even though that would make them happy. The government doesn't legislate that prostitution be legal even though that would make many guys happy. There are reasons why the government doesn't allow and doesn't encourage some things. You'd like to pretend that it is the government's main responsibility to make sure everyone can pursue whatever makes them happy. That's not how it works. Your position depends on there being no other good reasons to prevent something. I have argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm society in several ways. If those reasons hold, the government has precedent to not allow same-sex marriage in the same way they don't allow the sale of narcotics on the street or prostitution or incest... it's bad for society.

So, in summary, since this seems like your newest war cry, you need to provide the data (sorry if you already did and I missed it) first, then you need to explain why children of interracial parents use more drugs than everyone else, and only after you've done both of those you need to refute my argument.

Well, I think the first two, as well as the third.

You gave no refutation. In fact, all you really said was "oh, that's new". You pretty much ignored the argument I made.

But that's not new. Normally you ignore an argument and then say you've refuted it.

[Ooberman]

The government doesn't allow pedophiles to have sexual relationships with children, even thought it would make the pedophiles very happy.

Wow, not only ignoring salient points, but creating red herrings: pedophiles are adults seeking under-age, non-consenting adults. I suppose next you will mention animals!

Face it, you can't substantiate your arguments and the best you can do is bring up red herrings; unrelated issues.

Please address the issue that you yourself brought up.

We are talking about two adults that are legally allowed to marry: Man A and Man B. Not Man C and Child A. That is a Red Herring.

Please address the actual argument or be reported for not addressing the topic and continuing your unsubstantiated assertions.

[micatala]

Euphrates, I am seconding this question - I don't want it to get lost in the mix.

In a nutshell, taking for granted for the sake of argument that allowing gay marriage would increase the drug abuse rate, why should that be relevant to not allowing gay marriage, given that we allow interracial marriage and we have actual data that shows children of interracial couples abuse drugs at a higher rate than the general population?

What data?

I had provided a link and summary of this in Post #318.

Consider http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64

Quote:

2.(2008) "Current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older varied by race/ethnicity in 2008, with the lowest rate among Asians (3.6 percent) (Figure 2.9). Rates were 14.7 percent for persons reporting two or more races, 10.1 percent for blacks, 9.5 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives, 8.2 percent for whites, 7.3 percent of Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 6.2 percent for Hispanics."

Drug use is higher for blacks than any other racial group, except for those for people reporting two or more races. By Euphrates criteria, we should forbid interracial marriage since interracial individuals show higher rates of drug abuse.

Ok, here's one problem: the data doesn't talk specifically about children of interracial parents. It talks about individuals reporting more than one race, which isn't the same. A half-asian and half-white man marries a half-asian and half-white woman and their children aren't the children of interracial parents, but they would identify as having more than once race.

Sure, you could have interracial individuals of the same mix marrying. Still, how often do you think this happens.

And it doesn't negate that you wouldn't have mixed race parents if their hadn't been a previous interracial marriage. You can't have interracial people, those reporting more than one race, without people of different races having kids.

If it increases drug use, you said we should not encourage it. You did not say you had to know why the drug use rates were higher.

Those are your blinders talking.

No, it is me pointing out you are now changing your argument because I have pointed out a major problem with it. Your blinders accusation is irrelevant, subjective, and without merit.

Take them off and try to see the whole picture. The government should not encourage something that is harmful. Drugs are harmful, but enacting discriminatory policies is a precedent that is also harmful. You have to look at everything on balance. Would lowering drug use by a few percentage points be worth forbidding marriage between individuals of different races? Do you want to make that argument?

I am simply making your argument and applying it to a different but analogous situation. That you now acknowledge, which you did not before, that other considerations comes into play simply illustrates your inconsistency. I have repeatedly pointed out exactly the general point you are making here; that drug abuse rates, or population reductions, or promiscuity rates are largely irrelevant because we live in a free society and put a larger value on freedom and fairness than in punishing individuals that belong to groups simply because of some average characteristics of those groups.

I have had the blinders off the whole time, and you only now seem to be getting to that point, and only because I pointed out an example that presents your argument with a major problem.

In your statement here, you are essentially admitting that I have been right all along in making these arguments.

You need to remember it is not MY argument that I am making, I was making YOUR argument. I am glad to see you that you are finally seeing that your argument does not hold water.



In fact, others certainly made this general point previously. Here is joeknuccione posting on May 31st.

The issue of drug use and promiscuity is, IMO, a red herring designed to avoid the issue of how much freedom we are willing to cede to folks whose lifestyle and sexual practices we dislike, abhor, or are otherwise unaccepting. This notion punishes folks because of what some of their "group" does, it stigmatizes folks over the same, and it should have no bearing on the issue of state sponsored and privilege providing marriage.

The only difference between what he is saying and what you, over a month later, are saying is your completely bizarre notion of fairness as it applies to gays.

I know, you are going to claim you gave an explanation as to why gays use drugs at a higher rate. As I recall, you alluded to them using drugs to heighten the sexual experience. So what. The statistics are the statistics.

And the statistics don't mean anything without meaningful analysis and an argument giving the statistics relevance. You have given no analysis.

Statistics are not meaningless simply because we have not established causative links. In addition, apply this to your own argument. What are the causes of higher drug abuse rates among gays? You have suggested heightening of sexual experiences.

You originally made this argument on May 29th (notice, and I have done this repeatedly, how I do not ignore your arguments as you claim, but actually research the thread to see what you said).

Homosexual males, even in relationships, are far more likely to do drugs than heterosexual males. (see Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and women: Epidemiology and population characteristics, by McKirnan)

You did not refer here to any causal factors whatsoever. You simply pointed out a likelihood. Now you are trying to say my argument is without merit and can be ignored because I don't provide causal factors, and yet you did not see it necessary to do so in making your original argument.

Once again, inconsistency. It is ironic your accuse others of double standards.

However, let's continue the search. Later that same day, joeyknuccione suggested another reason gays might have higher rates of drug use.

Proposed or real higher rates of drug use by homosexuals could be a product of "self medicating" in a society that oppresses and discriminates against homosexuals. It could well be that allowing marriage for homosexuals would have little to no impact here - given other ways in which homosexuals are made to feel "less than human" - or some such similar notion.

The next day, you admitted you had not made a link between gay marriage and higher drug use.

You have not linked 'homosexual marriage' to an increase in promiscuity or drug use..

No, you're right, I didn't. The idea is that homosexuals have higher rates of drug use, abuse, and sexual promiscuity. If the government encourages people to enter into same-sex marriages, it stands to reason that more people will enter the homosexual lifestyle... with all the aforementioned problems. There is no evidence that marriage will magically make those problems go away.

You again only refer to likelihood, which would be based on statistics, with no causal factors even hinted at. You seem to think it fine to quote the statistics and assume they will continue to apply, regardless of changing circumstances.

You obviously, at this point in the argument, thought it quite sufficient simply to quote the stastistics without doing any analysis. This went on for some time. You made another correlative argument on May 31st, referring to crystal meth and tina, and based on very cursory statistics collected by a rather ad hoc methodology. Not completely irrelevant, perhaps, but certainly not very reliable.

Here you are again on June 2nd.

No, and I'm not saying homosexuals should not be allowed to marry based on drug use. I'm saying the government shouldn't encourage people to get involved in a lifestyle that has significantly higher rates of drug use and abuse. No matter what that lifestyle is.

No hint of causal factors. You clearly at that time considered it sufficient to merely point out that gays had a higher rate of drug use and that that was sufficient to support your position.


Your insistence on others having to make such causal arguments is clearly inconsistent, and a double standard.



You continued to make the same argument, sans any discussion of causation that I could find, again bringing up McKirnan on June 24th and again without any discussion of causal connections.


The first inkling of causal factors in your argument on drug use that I could find occurred on June 27th.

Everyone in the homosexual community didn't start there. They all entered that community at some point in their lives. We know that when you enter that community your rate of drug use will likely increase because that is the trend we see reflected in the community.

Now, right here you are basically saying just having the trend is enough. If someone becomes part of the group to which the statistic applies, it now applies to them.

Now, you then FINALLY make allusion to some potential causes.

We also know there are reasons for the increased drug use. Some are taken to increase blood circulation, especially while receiving anal sex. Some are taken to release inhibitions. In my initial post (part of which you quoted) I referred to a study done by McKirnan about drug use in the homosexual community. I'm not sure if it is publicly available, but it talks about these factors. The point is: we do know that individuals entering the homosexual community are immediately at higher risk of using drugs.

Now, I am certainly not going to say that if it is not publicly available, that it does not exist. BUt I have noted before that evidence cited on the forum should be available online. This has occasionally been discussed and affirmed by moderators on the forum, and I have noted this now I think for the third time in this thread, the first two occasioned by your citations of Zimmerman.

And, as long as I have made a habit of doing your homework for you, here is the full citation anyway on the article you mention. It seems to be available only through purchase online.

McKirnan, D.J. & Peterson, P.L. (1989). Alcohol and Drug Use Among Homosexual Men and Women: Epidemiology and Population Characteristics. Addictive Behaviors, 14, 545-553.

The abstract says:

Abstract
Homosexual men and women have been described as at high risk for alcohol and drug abuse, due to psychosocial variables such as stress levels or the cultural importance of bar settings. However, there are few actual data in this regard. This paper presents the findings of a large (n = 3400) survey of a homosexual population regarding population characteristics and patterns of alcohol and drug use. Psychosocial variables that may account for substance use patterns both generally and in this population are discussed in an accompanying paper. Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population. Contrary to other reports, this was not accompanied by higher rates of heavy use, although homosexuals did show higher rates of alcohol problems. In the general population women consume less drugs and alcohol than do men, and substance use substantially declines with age. Neither of these patterns were found for the homosexual sample, thus creating overall higher rates of substance abuse. This may reflect differences between homosexuals and the general population in their adherence to sex-role stereotypes and age-related social role changes, as well as culturally specific stressors and vulnerability to substance use.

Note that at least the abstract seems to support the suggestion by joey and others that the stress of being outside of the mainstream culture could be a factor in the higher rate of drug use.

Here is an abstract from another study, one that cites that McKirnan article.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimates the prevalence of depression and describes the correlates and independent associations of distress and depression among U.S. men who have sex with men. METHOD: A household-based probability sample of men who have sex with men (N=2,881) was interviewed between 1996 and 1998 in four large American cities. With cutoff points of 15 and 22 for the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, individual correlates and predictors of distress and depression were examined, and multinomial logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: The 7-day prevalence of depression in men who have sex with men was 17.2%, higher than in adult U.S. men in general. Both distress and depression were associated with lack of a domestic partner; not identifying as gay, queer, or homosexual; experiencing multiple episodes of antigay violence in the previous 5 years; and very high levels of community alienation. Distress was also associated with being of other than Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity and experiencing early antigay harassment. Depression was also associated with histories of attempted suicide, child abuse, and recent sexual dysfunction. Being HIV positive was correlated with distress and depression but not significantly when demographic characteristics, developmental history, substance use, sexual behavior, and current social context were controlled by logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of distress and depression are high in men who have sex with men. These high rates have important public health ramifications. The predictors of distress and depression suggest prevention efforts that might be effective when aimed at men who have sex with men.

Again, supporting that anti-gay attitudes and actions are what are leading to at least distress and depression in gays.


Here is another abstract for another article by McKirnan, it appears based on the same set of data.

Homosexual men and women may be at risk for alcohol and drug abuse due to psychosocial variables such as drinking styles, stress, or the cultural importance of bars. The study of psychosocial variables in homosexual culture may help us understand how they operate generally. This paper describes the findings of a large (n=3400) survey of homosexual population. The core hypothesis was that stress and other psychosocial variables have their primary effects among people made vulnerable to substance abuse by individual expectancies and/or cultural values. Tension reduction expectancies of alcohol effects had substantial effects on alcohol and drug abuse, as did the use of bars as a social resource, a vulnerability variable more specific to urban homosexual culture. Further, stress affected alcohol-drug problems only among people who were “vulnerable� via expectancies and values, and both high risk styles of substance use and simple consumption levels had much stronger effects on problems among vulnerable respondents, thus supporting the stress-vulnerability perspective. Individual differences in social role status was related to alcohol and drug problems, and may explain differences between homosexual and general populations.

Here is a page from an admittedly gay friendly site that cites McKirnan.

http://www.pflagphoenix.org/education/youth_stats.html

It provides a whole host of problems gays, especially teens, face and again supports the notion that at least some of the drug problem gays have is related to the difficult circumstances they face.



Now, if you would like to type out the quotes from McKirnan that support what you have said above, that might be helpful. The overall thrust of the article, however, at least based on the abstract would suggest the suggestions of others are actually supported by this article. I would also say, if you have access to the article, you should be able to tell us what the data actually says, if it is described therein. How many of the 3400 are actually taking drugs to, as you say, "increase blood circulation, especially while receiving anal sex" or reduce their inhibitions.

Are you claiming that there is a causal link between having interracial parents and drug use? Or are you just pointing at a correlation? If you are suggesting causation, you haven't identified the cause (which, as I previously implied, could be only coincidentally related to race or ethnicity).

Tell you what, since you took a month to even bring up causal factors in your drug abuse argument, I think I deserve at least a few days.


Still, the points I made above stand, and the fact that you took a month to bring up causal factors indicates you did not consider them necessary in the first place.

Since this post is already long, I'll get back to the fairness and discrimination issues in a subsequent post, except for one further question.

Your position is completely arbirtrary and subjective. You have now changed your position to say that we can ignore your previous argument, at least in the case of interracial marriage, because not discriminating is more important than preventing increased drug use.

My position has always been based on doing what is best for society. I haven't shifted or changed my position.

Are you saying that being non-discriminatory is beneficial for society? If so, I again have made this point and supported it and agree with you. I will simply reiterate that this is the first I can recall you have made this a part of your argument, whereas it has been a part of my argument for quite some time now.

[micatala]

God hates homosexuality.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13, The Holy Bible of Our Lord

My only comment on this is that, in a country that has freedom of religion, one religion's, or even several religions', views on what God hates is really irrelevant to what the law should be.

[micatala]

Here is an article on one study on multiracial youth.

http://diverseeducation.com/article/584 ... abuse.html

Multiracial adolescents in middle school are significantly more likely to engage in problem behaviors such as violence and substance abuse than single-race young people, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of Chicago also found that perceived racial discrimination in school and in their neighborhoods puts adolescents at risk for these problems. However, the study suggests that a strong, positive ethnic identity can shield some multiracial youth from behavior problems. The study was published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.

“Adolescence is a difficult period for all children because two things are usually happening,� says Dr. Richard Catalano, director of the UW's Social Development Research Group in the School of Social Work and a co-author of the study.

Ironically, the very same factors that several of us have argued, and now supported to some extent, have helped cause the higher drug use rates in gays are involved in higher drug use rates among multiracial individuals.


I would suggest we not only have provided causal factors for the higher drug use rates for both gay and multiracial individuals, we have more robust evidence that these factors (stress, dealing with discrimination and violence, etc.) are more relevant than the ones suggested by Euphrates.



Here is an interview with a multiracial individual on her experiences.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/201 ... 4_ST_N.htm

I seem to be having trouble getting it past the ad though. Maybe someone else will have more luck.