[Kahonek]

"I'll also reiterate, none of that has anything to do with whether or not gays should be able to get legally married."

You seem to be attacking a straw man here. You need to go back and read this thread again, starting with post #373, to which you first replied. The study cited there is the one I've been discussing.

[visualops]

You don't comprehend.
You've got tunnelvision over that study.
Post #373 was just a point I entered into the conversation because I wanted to point out something, and add my thoughts, which went well beyond statistics. I had to hit the "reply" button somewhere lol.
Personally I think the discussion of the social and moral pros and cons of gay marriage are far more interesting and relevant than some insufficient study.

From my post #488(my first post):
The other issue is the "equality" argument. The fact that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women does not imply they aren't "equal". A man cannot marry his sister either. Is that not also "unequal"? After all, if they are consenting adults and promise to stay together the rest of their lives, isn't that what counts? When decisions are made based on someone's concept of "fairness" or some sort of general all things are "equal" type of premise, then anything goes.

From my post #534:
The real question though, is how do we see marrige-why do people get married, and why are/should there be benefits to that special relationship. The basic answer, is family. There are legal ties and benefits (and liabilities), because marriage is not just 2 people shacking up for convenience. Marriage is a legal and moral lifetime commitment.


I think if anyone against gay marriage attempts to use statistics or studies to try and prove whatever point, they are going to lose.