Absolutely. This just means less resources are required, not no resources at all.
Would you argue for stopping funding for reasearching and combatting rare diseases affecting only a small population? If you were to base funding solely on utilitarianism, you would.
I never said any of that. Just pointing out men in gay relationships are more vulnerable because men in general are more likely to become physically violent in cases of domestic abuse.
With gay marriages it is more of an issue now
It’s important to recognize that women are equally capable of waving around a kitchen knife.
Much less likely than a male though. Just look at the numbers.
Absolutely. This just means less resources are required, not no resources at all.
Would you argue for stopping funding for reasearching and combatting rare diseases affecting only a small population? If you were to base funding solely on utilitarianism, you would.
I never said any of that. Just pointing out men in gay relationships are more vulnerable because men in general are more likely to become physically violent in cases of domestic abuse.
I thought statistically gay male marriages had low rates of domestic violence.
This says the opposite
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648
How so?
Men tend to be more physically violent