leoj,

Whether you like it or not - that issue was dealt
with previously. You are now trying to manipulate
and distract from the subject at hand.
You need to stop doing that and stick to the
subject at hand.

As I said earlier, the data doesn't matter because, in an issue this politicised, the various sides will always reject the data they don't like even if it has to be on totally spurious grounds.

Foxy rejects data because someone said it was worthless. Never-mind that that claim was based complete misunderstand of the paper. She also rejects because someone said the data was compiled by partisans. Never mind that a partisan said that. When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

Equally AJ rejects Allen 2013 based on what someone else told him even though their claims hold no water and are in direct conflict with actual data in the paper. At the same time, he swears by a paper that, for entirely suspicious reasons, rejected 15% of its own data.

No amount of good data will change minds here. So I take no comfort or distress from any of the data. Besides we've not had sufficient time or samples to get any really convincing lay-down misere type data anyway.

But the data I do rely on is the last 1000 or so years of experience that shows that the traditional biological family is the best means to rear the next generation.

The stakes are too high to play around with this. Let's not forget that it was only a decade ago that the high priests of the left were in lock-step with the view that marriage was something between a man and a woman. In a mere few years we've gone from that to a determination to overthrow millennia of experience and learning.

It won't end well.

Bazz,

"Regarding slavery, I came accross an article that suggested slavery was a milepost on the way to a developed society."

I don't want to get in the middle of this sub-thread but just two points:

1. While its true that Rome, particular republican and early-empire Rome, relied heavily on the institution of slavery to support its economy, its also true that slavery ultimately held innovation back. There's no incentive to improve processes when labour is so cheap. The Roman world knew of steam power and had a rudimentary piston. They were this close (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlhrTpi69E) to getting on the first rung of the industrialisation ladder but missed it because of slavery. I'm no China expert but I'm told a similar thing happened in China in the first millennium. Its no coincidence that industrialisation occurred first in those countries which were the first to get rid of slavery.

2. Slavery is bad, mmm'kay. But let's remember that the first society ever to successfully work to rid itself of slavery was run by post-enlightenment Christians.

My guess is that once the world is no longer run by post-enlightenment Christians, slavery will make a rapid come-back.

Good data has not been presented. On the contrary,
what has been presented has been nothing but
false accusations. And the
encouragement to bully people because of their
sexual orientation.

Douglas Allen and Mark
Regnerus have both been described by their peers as
having "fringe viewpoints" and Judge Bernard A. Friedman
threw out Douglas Allen's case out of court as having
no credibility. Douglas Allen by the way stated that
"people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell."
Sound fair and unbiased? I guess to some.

There's a new campaign amongst lawyers -
aimed at promoting marriage equality called - "Two
People."

This campaign states that -

"Marriage equality is, above all else, a question of law.
Two people want to get married. The law says they cannot.
That law is not ancient. It was made in 2004. Equality
before the law is ancient. It is as old as law itself.
Older than marriage. This law is unequal.
It discriminates. No legal principle explains why it
should. All we seek is to restore equality. That can be
achieved with the simplest change. In the Marriage Act,
delete the words, "a man and a woman" and replace them with
"two people." That's it - the stroke of a pen.
And two people who want to get married can."

Yay!

Mhaze said;
Its no coincidence that industrialisation occurred first in those
countries which were the first to get rid of slavery.

If I might suggest a rewording that is more correct;
Its no coincidence that when industrialisation occurred those countries
were the first to get rid of slavery.

It is all about the cost of energy. The Romans used slaves on
treadmills to pump water out of their mines, the British used steam pumps.

The current marriage act says "man and a woman", to use those terms means they are mature persons. To use the term "Two persons who love each other" does not define maturity. Love alone is not the basis of a marriage, and is a senseless legal term. Those that equate love as sexual attraction are shallow when things change.

Marriage as it was established meant self sacrifice for each other and the care of their offspring for life. Shallow emotions and commitment to the relationship meant the vows of marriage were taken lightly.

Man and Woman were designed to complement each other as partners and fulfil a human genus - male plus female. They were designed to be sexual companions for life. They were designed to reproduce in their likeness.