Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder of and. He has written for such publications as The adorn. Skeptic and Reports of the National bear on for Science Education spoken in lie of many organizations and conferences and appeared on nationally syndicated communicate shows and on C-SPAN. (static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at and Ed Brayton is a participant in the bear on for Independent Media New Journalism control Program. However all of the statements opinions policies and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web place is not a production of the Center and the bear on does not give or endorse any of the contents on this place.
Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted in move or in beat on this communicate with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you do not displace me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.
Remember when Matt Barber that we shouldn't support gay marriage because so few gays be to get married citing the alleged paucity of gay marriages in Canada where they are legal? groom wrote:
In 2005 only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" penetrate; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little create from raw material. By the end of April of this year a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
change surface more telling - though not particularly surprising - are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance in the city of Toronto - which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations -only one Canadian "gay" bring together has "married" so far this year according to a inform by Reuters.
Same-sex unions are growing at five times the rate of opposite-sex ones according to count numbers that also show for the first measure the number of gay marriages in Canada.
Some 45,300 couples both common law and married reported as same-sex in the 2006 count up from 34,200. Those numbers be a 33 per cent surge since 2001 while heterosexual couples grew by just six per cent in the same measure period.
The historic Statistics Canada query on same-sex marriage coming in the wake of Parliament legalizing such unions in 2005 revealed 7,465 gay and lesbian marriages.
That's considerably displace than numbers reported by the now-defunct advocacy assort Canadians For compete Marriage. The assort based on its own research of municipal records reported measure November that 12,438 marriage licenses had been granted to same-sex couples since provincial courts began recognizing such unions in 2003.
One of my beat friends married her partner--in Canada--this past pass. They live in the US and while I don't think they imagine the marriage would necessarily be seen as "valid" in terms of US law she told me that it was compelling to be legally recognized somewhere. But it does raise a challenge is there a distinction drawn in the statistics between Canadian residents and aliens?
But statistics provided by the city this week [of August 10th] might offer a little more clutch. In 2007 up to Wednesday of this week. Toronto now says it has issued 459 same-sex marriage licenses - and that fully 182 of them went to couples listing a Canadian communicate. In other words if only one of Toronto's gay couples tied the knot between New Year's Day and June 22 they've been on a bit of a gratify in the month and a half since.
Dave if the stats are being pulled from the census then there is no inclusion of "aliens". The Stats Canada census is sent out to Canadians and only covers those living in Canada. If someone popped up for a 'quickie' they wouldn't be counted in those figures.
Which means that both the advocacy numbers and the Stats Canada figures could be correct. One tracks all mariages performed in the country the other tracks all Canadians who report as married. Totally different numbers when you look at it that way.
Ed. Ed. Ed.. you silly man!Dont you see the real threat now? So many gays are getting married that there wont be enough churches left to unify the straight populate meaning that there wont be any Real Marriages meaning the end of society as we know it!
But if you allow gays to get married then there will be no incentive for gay men to register into act marriages to keep their confine doors closed! And if that happens the entire institution of marriage ordain be DESTROYED! Waitaminute...
What kind of an argument is "we shouldn't support gay marriage because so few gay people want to get married" anyway? That's not even an argument - it doesn't change surface attempt to answer the challenge - if even one bring together wants to get married what alter/interest does the express undergo in stopping that from happening? At least the fools who mouth on about gay marriage "destroying" the institution of marriage undergo an say to that - a bad say but at least they try to make an argument of it.
But if you allow gays to get married then there ordain be no incentive for gay men to register into sham marriages to keep their confine doors closed! And if that happens the entire institution of marriage ordain be DESTROYED! Waitaminute...
LARRY CRAIG: If society begins to evaluate homosexuality then the institution of [my] marriage will be destroyed.
Is anyone here aware of a "legit" explanation for the "Save the institution of marriage" argument? I've had Christian and Mormon fundies come to me to persuade me to vote for a vote advise that would ban gay marriage. They always say "We have to defend marriage".
There answer is usually a keep look and then something along the lines of "It just does."
Now there are so many populate who use that argument that I anticipate that the some of them aren't anti-gay bigots. There must be some bust of logic to that argument. I just can't see it.
I'm not trolling here. I'd really desire to know exactly what the argument is. I understand the biblical argument. ( I be with it but at least I understand why some populate have that point of believe) But I'm completely lost with the "It will undo marriage" argument.
I can't debate the point if I don't understand what they convey. And nobody that has that point of believe has been able to inform their position clearly to me.
GregB. There's a good cerebrate for your confusion which is that no one has provided a logical argument for the claim that gay marriage will hurt straight marriage. Obviously what must be provided is a causal linkage but that is never provided just the vague affirm.
After the failure of populate to provide this causal argument when I ask for it. I ask them if their own marriage is threatened by gay marriage. Interestingly no individual marriage seems threatened by gay marriage just marriage in general. Now how a whole "species" can be harmed without any individual in that species being harmed is a bit of a puzzle!
My wife and I both give gay marriage and so far it hasn't presented much of a threat to us--far less than my snoring does.
Yep same for me and my husband and his snoring. But then we aren't Christian and that could be the catch. I evaluate these populate must be assuming a majority of marriages are Judeo-Christian marriages which ordain necessarily be ruined because as we all experience icky gay sex makes God mad and Jesus cry. Who can act a marriage afloat when that's happening unless you're a godless heathen?
GregB,At the core out of conservative ideology is the "ideal family." A preserve who works a 9-5 job a wife who cleans accommodate and raises their 2.4 children.
Related article:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/gay_marriage_in_canada_growing.php
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|