I believe in gay marriage

[Oakie]

Did you read any of the other sites?

And consider this - according to a study from the Uni of Auckland Source only 0.9% of the population identify as gay - 16% of cases for 0.9% of the population compared to 84% for 94% of the population

which I think you will find validates 100% my claim.

No I only read the one at the top of the list ... partly because it was a NZ site and also because it wasn't a particularly gay or straight oriented site (unbiased). You were talking about lesbians initially but now it's just gays so your stats don't fully stack up either. Unfortunately it's all unreliable as Police figures indicate they believe less than 20% of domestic violence is reported anyway.

Sorry to cut and paste but check this out from Smithsonian.com It raised some interesting figures and points ... especially the violence rates in bi-sexual people which really seems to be an anomoly:

In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.
Then some comment from an LGBTQ spokesman
"Reporting can be really difficult, and historically we [LGBTQ people] have not had a very good relationship with police and law enforcement, so folks may not be reporting it." In any case, he continued, the police might not believe the victims when they call, the attitude often being, "You're both men, work it out between yourselves," or, "Women aren't violent; they don't hit each other."

Indeed, according to the NCAVP report, only 16.5 percent of survivors reported interacting with the police, but in one-third of those cases, the survivor was arrested instead of the abuser. A mere 3.7 percent of survivors reported seeking access to shelters.

So it indicates though that there's not much difference between violence rates between women in a straight relationship and those in lesbian relationship 46% vs 43%. Certainly not a 'shocking' difference as you first claimed.

I guess what it comes down to is the stats, how they were gathered and how reliable they are (and they don't seem that reliable). Again ... as someone cleverer than I once said, "Statistics will admit to anything if tortured enough".

Lets just call it a draw and go ride our bikes huh?

[yokel]

The very first site in your Google search listing wouldn't support your contention that the "level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships."

From Women's Refuge:
84% of those arrested for domestic violence are men; 16% are women.

those numbers don't mean shit.

women are just as violent if not more than men, but because they're weak as piss their kind of violence is not the same as a mans.
theres been plenty of times ive wanted to slap a woman around but I choose not to

[mstriumph]

........................

"Marriage" is a cultural, tribal concept which traces far back into prehistory. The idea of a lawful bond is exceedingly ancient.

Agree --- but that 'legal' bond of which you speak was also 'religious' in the terms of that time. 'Religious' in context of my text goes 'back into prehistory' and encompasses, as far as can be discerned from info now available to us, 'legal' in those distant times

our 'enlightened' society now embraces the concept of separation of church and state - 'marriage' adhering to the former and requiring the paperwork of the civil union of the latter to be legally' recognised; two things, distinctly different.

The reasons are quite straight forward. Creatures which have a lengthy gestation and an even longer helpless infant period, form pair-bonds in order to protect their offspring. There is nothing religious or magical about this commitment .................

in those time, in many societies polygamy (not pair bonding) was the more effective and logical mechanism for this as women were considered property to a much greater extent than is current. Nothing religious or magical about that, either, just a bill of sale or contract?

Humans have the most vulnerable offspring of all mammals and thus need to bond as a couple to raise their children to independance. The institution of marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that.

No, sorry ... confirmation bias and consequent illusory correlation/ faulty conclusion.

[oldrider]

Marriage was simply a means of trying to maintain some form of order out of chaos - especially for children - so called adults are generally fucked in the head!

[mashman]

Marriage was simply a means of trying to maintain some form of order out of chaos - especially for children - so called adults are generally fucked in the head!

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".

[unstuck]

so called adults are generally fucked in the head!

[bluninja]

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".

Why not just for to protect a "man's property"? In early English times the women didn't have to say "I do" to be married as they were considered chatels and didn't have rights (women were no the free men of the Magna Carta).

[mashman]

Why not just for to protect a "man's property"? In early English times the women didn't have to say "I do" to be married as they were considered chatels and didn't have rights (women were no the free men of the Magna Carta).

So when only a female member of a family survived the property was removed? Not that it wouldn't surprise me like.

[bluninja]

So when only a female member of a family survived the property was removed? Not that it wouldn't surprise me like.

A simple explanation

[mashman]

A simple explanation

How does that account for queen victoria and the likes of them thar powerful chicks that survived their family? What about pre-english law?

[Winston001]

So explain how human offspring is more vulnerable than a new born kangaroo, or perhaps a platypus or echidna egg. None of these species are monogamous. How about bear cubs....where the female alone brings up the cub? Elephants, within the context of their environment, are vulnerable for as long as human offspring (who can use a guns from an early age) but they are not monogamous.

The fact is that many mammal species are as vulnerable, or more vulnerable than a human child but they don't all form life long bonds sort of shoots your statements down. The fact that many mammals lack knowledge of self or the ability to plan for the future means that if it were evolutionary sense then all mammals with offspring that weren't born self sufficient would be doing it.

"Marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that" I think this is the cart before the horse. The tribe (society) is the mechanism that protects the offspring; if you were to talk evolutionary forces then a group of humans would be able to prevent an attack by a pack of wolves...a man and his wife, perhaps not. The reason for marriage may be more to do with ensuring that the male human genes are passed on, since you can't go murdering males attracting more females that are wanted by another male, women or their offspring from another male then society came up with a solution of bonding/marriage. Whether that was through divine instruction or that most societies in the world all worked out similar solutions who knows.

Funnily enough polygamy occurred in many religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many "primitive" religions. Funnily enough marriage became monogamous as national governments took over countries and women stopped being chattels.

Agree --- but that 'legal' bond of which you speak was also 'religious' in the terms of that time. 'Religious' in context of my text goes 'back into prehistory' and encompasses, as far as can be discerned from info now available to us, 'legal' in those distant times

our 'enlightened' society now embraces the concept of separation of church and state - 'marriage' adhering to the former and requiring the paperwork of the civil union of the latter to be legally' recognised; two things, distinctly different.

in those time, in many societies polygamy (not pair bonding) was the more effective and logical mechanism for this as women were considered property to a much greater extent than is current. Nothing religious or magical about that, either, just a bill of sale or contract?


No, sorry ... confirmation bias and consequent illusory correlation/ faulty conclusion.

Nice to have a debate.

I concede that the reference to pair-bonding is too specific, because in the animal kingdom and the human situation polygamy and polyandry exist. Indeed the Church of the Latterday Saints originally prosletised polygamy.

We really don't know what structures were developed by humans in pre-history. What we do know is that stone age human groups untouched by modern civilisation in Australia, Africa, New Guinea, and South America overwhelmingly practise pair-bonds with a few examples of polyandry and polygamy.

Just to be clear - the exciting idea of polygamy which still exists today in a few Moslem societies is a structure of obligation. A man may take more wives but only if he can properly provide for them and their children. In other words its a burden, not a win. It is a sign of wealth.And often its an obligation because the man's brother has died and as a matter of honour he must marry the widow to support the children.

[oldrider]

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing!

[mashman]

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing!

Hazy... I'm still waiting for a coach load of kids, with scottish accents, to appear at my door at any moment

heh... but we've progressed so very far, how could you possibly consider that we're sliding back towards the stone age, especially as there's still a financial system in place to replace the honour and trust. Blasphemy

[oldrider]

Hazy... I'm still waiting for a coach load of kids, with scottish accents, to appear at my door at any moment

heh... but we've progressed so very far, how could you possibly consider that we're sliding back towards the stone age, especially as there's still a financial system in place to replace the honour and trust. Blasphemy

Caveman breeding habits and social behaviour was what I was referring to actually - it wasn't illegal then and not illegal now but is it best practice? Jus askin?

[yokel]

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing!

Dont listen to the PC crowd, it's ok to judge people, judging people is normal human behaviour.

now if I ever get stuck I just think, what would a caveman do? haha

on gay rights.