Came to this thread expecting evolution deniers, but there seems to be an absence.

Someone owes me a self-esteem boost!

powerfactor on May 9, 2012 at 5:52 PM

You can’t be serious.

@Tom making an assertion and quoting from anti gay websites, whose own authors have since refuted them is hardly showing proof. Things have changed, culture moved on, it’s just the world is full of bad information sometimes. Gay culture is young, dating back to the second world war, and it has mostly been shaped by outside perceptions. This move towards marriage is about the gay culture growing up and realizing that there is more to hope for then a quick death. rather then pushing people away you should be welcoming them back and encouraging healthy lifestyles, not insisting that people will never change. You want gays not being promiscuous? hold them to a higher standard and reward them when they attain it.

Zekecorlain on May 9, 2012 at 7:21 PM

– Show me proof!!

– Ok, here you go.

– That’s not proof!! Those people were biased!! Things have changed!!

Whatever. Apparently nothing is proof unless it confirms what you want it to say.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous

This was the original claim you made that you insisted there was lots and lots of documentation for. Every single example you cited above notes only the promiscuity of HOMOSEXUAL men. Not one of them compares them to straight or bisexual men. And yet you now claim that your citations back up that they are in fact “far more promiscuous”.

Now, go back to school and try again. This time, back up the actual claim you made, and you might perhaps also try to find an unbiased source. Not that I expect you know what that word means.

I said it was well documented. Because you twice insisted that it was not well documented unless I gave you links to such documentation, I did exactly that. Now you want to play the game of saying, “Can you prove that normal men are not just as promiscuous?”

I’m done with you and your moving the goalposts. The original poster made a BS claim to say that homosexual promiscuity was a “BS stereotype.” If you were not able to penetrate that bogus claim, it’s not my problem.

The links I cited contained plenty of examples from gay advocacy sites as well, so you can give up the “biased source” claim also.

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

Where did I make the claim that men and women weren’t biologically made for each other? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that not everyone is just like you, that it’s possible they were born that way, and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not a choice. Your narrow mind can’t even grasp the scientific possibliity though, so you decide to create a strawman. If your argument is so weak you have to make up things others never said, perhaps you need a better argument.

Strawman? Wouldn’t that apply to babbling about “biological diversity” when I gave clear examples of how men and women were made for each other? Not only did you create a strawman, but you projected it onto me.

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

When did I say there were no good reasons for heterosexual marriage? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that there’s no good reason to deny someone else that right. The good reason it should exist between homosexuals is that it’s not your right to curtail theirs. Your liberty is not more important than theirs. Get over yourself.

Now you’re getting tiresome. My case is that there are multiple good reasons for marriage between men and women that DO NOT EXIST for homosexual men.

Let’s cut to the chase here. Homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. Homosexual partners are not husband and wife. Marriage is between a man and a woman. After all the muss, fuss, and bother, it comes down to the fact that homosexuals do not want to accept this, and so demand “marriage equality” so that they can be declared to be just as normal, just as healthy, just as socially acceptable as normal families.

Kinda like I said here:

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

tom on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Anyone can demand anything they like any time they want. Are you suggesting that they should be silenced from saying things you don’t like? Are you suggesting that their right to say such things somehow overrides your free will to disagree with them?

And like I said above, nothing you’ve cited says homosexual men are any more promiscuous than straights. In fact, they say nothing about straights whatsoever. Since this has been pointed out to you, if you continue to make the claim you are then a liar. Think a bit more carefully about your next response.

runawayyyy on May 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I gave you the links to show homosexual promiscuity. If you want to claim that normal men are just as promiscuous, find your own links. Until you can find statistics proving your claim, turn your finger around and quit calling other people liars for telling you the unpleasant truth.

Someone owes me a self-esteem boost!

@Tom if you want real studies by real researchers and not people who are part of a discredited group who renounced their own belief in reparative therapy and have publicly asked for forgiveness for all the harm they caused. Then read this book, which a much clearer meta study of what gays get up to Yes gays can have multiple partners and no not all of them are monogamous, but the ones I hang out with are, and there are a lot more of us at the end of the day, because people don’t want to be alone.
Marriage hasn’t been about a breeding contract and property contract for 100 years. why do you think turning back the clock is a good idea? Because suffering builds character? Spend some time with gays, stop demonizing your fellow citizens, and for your own christ’s sake have a little faith in compassion.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous

This was the original claim you made that you insisted there was lots and lots of documentation for. Every single example you cited above notes only the promiscuity of HOMOSEXUAL men. Not one of them compares them to straight or bisexual men. And yet you now claim that your citations back up that they are in fact “far more promiscuous”.

Now, go back to school and try again. This time, back up the actual claim you made, and you might perhaps also try to find an unbiased source. Not that I expect you know what that word means.

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

Where did I make the claim that men and women weren’t biologically made for each other? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that not everyone is just like you, that it’s possible they were born that way, and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not a choice. Your narrow mind can’t even grasp the scientific possibliity though, so you decide to create a strawman. If your argument is so weak you have to make up things others never said, perhaps you need a better argument.

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

When did I say there were no good reasons for heterosexual marriage? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that there’s no good reason to deny someone else that right. The good reason it should exist between homosexuals is that it’s not your right to curtail theirs. Your liberty is not more important than theirs. Get over yourself.

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

tom on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Anyone can demand anything they like any time they want. Are you suggesting that they should be silenced from saying things you don’t like? Are you suggesting that their right to say such things somehow overrides your free will to disagree with them?

And like I said above, nothing you’ve cited says homosexual men are any more promiscuous than straights. In fact, they say nothing about straights whatsoever. Since this has been pointed out to you, if you continue to make the claim you are then a liar. Think a bit more carefully about your next response.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous.

And yet, once again, you refuse to cite a single source to back up your claim you insist is “pretty well documented”. Surely, if you’re telling the truth and you know it, such examples would be easy to find. And so you produce….nothing. Telling.

It tells me that it’s well-documented enough that I wouldn’t expect anyone to challenge such a statement. But since you insist:

Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: “A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners…As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland — known as Chicago’s “gay center” — have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.”[6][7]

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following:
A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men’s Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex….

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”[8]

From http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

And again,

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984. 6

From http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And of course,

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: “The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

From http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

There’s much more available, but this should be sufficient to establish that it is well-documented.

On the basis of my not initially providing links for something that is known to be well-documented, you then try to build your argument.

Now, it is technically possible that he and his friends are part of those rare exceptions, but even if that were true he knows good and well that they are not representative of the majority of homosexuals.

Since you have no actual evidence to support your claims about homosexual behavior, I can’t help but wonder….how did you get to be such an expert? Perhaps it’s all anecdotal? NTTAWWT.

See evidence above. If it is well-documented, how much expertise do I have to claim?

Yet everything he said above was intended to make you believe that most homosexuals are monogamous, and to make people who question that look like bigots.

I couldn’t care less how monogamous homosexual men are, since I’ll never be marrying one. Why are you so obsessed with the issue?

Who said I was obsessed? He said homosexual promiscuity was a BS stereotype, that he was gay and monogamous, and that all his gay friends were too. This was a fairly transparent attempt to make homosexuality seem more normal and make people who raise objection to it look foolish. He was bald-facing BS to make a rhetorical point.

I called BS, accurately.

Accurately? Based on what? Like I said before, if this claim is so easily backed up with scientific evidence, why do you refuse to produce any?

See above. As I said, accurately.

And you call me a jerk because you disagree.

And you still wonder why. Odd.

Not any more. Your advocacy is plain to see.

Men and women are quite literally made for each other. That is basic biology. Another quick glance at basic biology should make it obvious that the proportions are one-to-one. Male and Female both have a single sex organ, and son-of-a-gun they just so happen to fit together. And when they come together sexually, they just happen to reproduce. And those children just happen to need long-term parents, and just so happen to do better with a mother and a father, and their lives just happen to be worse if the father or mother is missing. And the differences in the man and woman just happen to complement each other.

You’d almost think all this was by design.

With all the biological diversity present just in human beings currently on this planet, you can’t conceive of any kind of diversity that might include sexual preferences different from yours? Or does the thought make you so uncomfortable that you just ignore even the possbility? It’s gotta be either ignorance or homophobia, so you tell me. Which is it?

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

And with all that, I haven’t begun to identify all that makes marriage the bedrock institution of society. We desperately need more solid marriages and families that stay together. Instead, progressives continue their long history of destroying the foundational institutions of our country.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Are you suggesting that any of the above is in any way threatened by gay people who, for the most part, aren’t reproducing? How is Zerc getting married to another guy getting in the way of my happy family enjoying our lives? As long as he isn’t insisting I and my kids should be forced to watch what he does in the privacy of his own space (and I’m pretty sure he isn’t), what do you care? Perhaps you’re just going out of your way to be offended by something that’s none of your business.

All that said, what’s the point of a gay pride parade? Sorry, just have never been able to figure that one out.

runawayyyy on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

They can have a commitment ceremony if they want, live together, introduce themselves to others as a couple, create powers of attorney and wills, etc. None of that requires any new laws. In fact, you can even open a joint checking account without being married.

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

You poor pathetic person.

What a shame

tom daschle

LOL it’s cool I gotta great man, house, car, career, job, friends, and family. If this is pathetic then it’s highly under rated.

you think you understand what makes people happy, yet you get it so wrong.

giving this a strong LIKE, us gays aren’t trying to change other people’s marriage, just trying to get you to stop throwing your gay kids off the cliff. You’re the ones that birth us, it’s not like we magically appear in the cabbage patch. Honestly the disgust many carry for their own children is truly sad. So strange that you won’t trust your own children, but you’ll blindly follow a book written by people who you can’t even prove existed. Or even really wrote it.

Zekecorlain on May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You poor pathetic person.

What a shame

Funny… a guy with the name “gravity” (i.e. a question of physics) espousing left-wing “your truth, my truth, whatever truth you want to be truth” subjectivism.

Truth exists. We debate in order to derive truth, or at least that’s what we ought to do. When you liberals try to set as a “ground rule” for debate that no truth will allowed, you poison the well of discourse and that’s why you end up constantly blabbing about your feelings and calling the other side names.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 6:59 PM

First of all, I’m not liberal by any stretch. I do happen to be a libertarian.

And yes, you are correct that truth exists, and that we study and debate to understand what truth is. I have not at all set forth as a ground rule that there is no truth allowed. I simply accept that human beings do not yet know everything, so there is plenty of room for scientific discovery and debate about what “truth” is. Actually, you are the one who has put a limit on what “truth” may be discussed. The only “truth” you will accept is the Bible’s “truth”. So who is really the one putting a restriction on the debate as to what truth is? If the Bible is “truth” then you first point is meaningless. What is the point of debating to discren the truth when the truth is already laid out for you there in the Bible?

I would not attempt to dissuade you from your religion and the “truth” as you see it from the Bible. I respect every persons religion, and to attempt to dissuade you would be a pointless endeavour.

If Chris fails Evolution & Psychology, you seemed to have failed Social Studies.

TMOverbeck on May 9, 2012

giving this a strong LIKE, us gays aren’t trying to change other people’s marriage, just trying to get you to stop throwing your gay kids off the cliff. You’re the ones that birth us, it’s not like we magically appear in the cabbage patch. Honestly the disgust many carry for their own children is truly sad. So strange that you won’t trust your own children, but you’ll blindly follow a book written by people who you can’t even prove existed. Or even really wrote it.

It seems that Chris doesn’t truly understand the evolution he’s touting. Let’s take a simple look at evolution. It demands that successful species must both survive and REPRODUCE. A man cannot impregnate another man and a woman has zero ability to impregnate anyone let alone her “partner.” Thus, evolution demands that success of the species relies on a heterosexual relationship. Any other relationship is suboptimal and an unwanted trait. Chris, you fail evolution 101 (not to mention physiology 101).

Silver on May 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Maybe so, but just because it’s suboptimal or unnatural doesn’t mean it should be illicit or illegal. Just because a man can’t impregnate another man doesn’t mean they can’t adopt a child (who, by the way is without parents because his/her mother decided to give birth and give him/her up for adoption rather than have an abortion). If Chris fails Evolution & Psychology, you seemed to have failed Social Studies.

Also, I personally have nothing against public display of affection. Kiss all you want, but ixnay on the ondlingfay.

In 360 comments I’m sure someone has mentioned that Chris obviously flunked elementary school biology. Evolution requires reproduction. Gays don’t. The only result they can claim is extinction.

ironked on May 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM

So lesbians are unable to conceive by artificial insemination? Gay men can’t adopt? My wife and I haven’t been able to conceive, we decided to adopt a couple kids, are we on the wrong side of evolution? Yes, those are frivolous arguments, but so is the argument that same-sex couples getting married (or getting equivalent marriage benefits) or adopting kids will bring about the crumbling of society.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous.

And yet, once again, you refuse to cite a single source to back up your claim you insist is “pretty well documented”. Surely, if you’re telling the truth and you know it, such examples would be easy to find. And so you produce….nothing. Telling.

Now, it is technically possible that he and his friends are part of those rare exceptions, but even if that were true he knows good and well that they are not representative of the majority of homosexuals.

Since you have no actual evidence to support your claims about homosexual behavior, I can’t help but wonder….how did you get to be such an expert? Perhaps it’s all anecdotal? NTTAWWT.

Yet everything he said above was intended to make you believe that most homosexuals are monogamous, and to make people who question that look like bigots.

I couldn’t care less how monogamous homosexual men are, since I’ll never be marrying one. Why are you so obsessed with the issue?

I called BS, accurately.

Accurately? Based on what? Like I said before, if this claim is so easily backed up with scientific evidence, why do you refuse to produce any?

And you call me a jerk because you disagree.

And you still wonder why. Odd.

Men and women are quite literally made for each other. That is basic biology. Another quick glance at basic biology should make it obvious that the proportions are one-to-one. Male and Female both have a single sex organ, and son-of-a-gun they just so happen to fit together. And when they come together sexually, they just happen to reproduce. And those children just happen to need long-term parents, and just so happen to do better with a mother and a father, and their lives just happen to be worse if the father or mother is missing. And the differences in the man and woman just happen to complement each other.

You’d almost think all this was by design.

With all the biological diversity present just in human beings currently on this planet, you can’t conceive of any kind of diversity that might include sexual preferences different from yours? Or does the thought make you so uncomfortable that you just ignore even the possbility? It’s gotta be either ignorance or homophobia, so you tell me. Which is it?

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

And with all that, I haven’t begun to identify all that makes marriage the bedrock institution of society. We desperately need more solid marriages and families that stay together. Instead, progressives continue their long history of destroying the foundational institutions of our country.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Are you suggesting that any of the above is in any way threatened by gay people who, for the most part, aren’t reproducing? How is Zerc getting married to another guy getting in the way of my happy family enjoying our lives? As long as he isn’t insisting I and my kids should be forced to watch what he does in the privacy of his own space (and I’m pretty sure he isn’t), what do you care? Perhaps you’re just going out of your way to be offended by something that’s none of your business.

All that said, what’s the point of a gay pride parade? Sorry, just have never been able to figure that one out.

That was written by Thomas Jefferson by the way

steel guy on May 8, 2012t 8:50 PM

I was “/facepalming” at firepilot’s inability to define “rights” or “liberty” in response to my prior statement about what “rights” really are. His sentence basically said “liberty is a human right” which shows you the depth of his philosophy.

Not sure if you have ever actually paid attention to small government or even libertarian ideals, slavery does not exactly fall into letting people live their own lives. Slavery was about controlling the individual through enslavement, not about giving everyone as much freedom as possible. Trying to equate small government libertarianism with continuation of slavery, is bizarre to say the least.

The arguments on both sides of slavery were the same (almost word for word) as the arguments on both sides of abortion. Libertarians have some disagreements amongst themselves but the vast majority are on the side of the plantation owner (mother-to-be) rather than the slave (baby), citing “right to do what I want with my property (body)” as supreme over other people’s rights to life. The libertarian ideal is not “freedom for all”, it’s “freedom, however I define it, for me first”.

And the abolition of slavery was most certainly an imposition by the federal government into the lives of individuals and the sovereignty of states. Ask any southerner, they still think the civil war was about usurping states rights first and foremost.

You oppose that, right? The government forcing everyone to abide by the morality of one party?

And I am sure in the south, Slavery was seen as moral and Christian too, in the religious stronghold of the southeast.
firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I doubt it. I think they mostly said what pro-abortion people say, “I’m personally opposed” but I can’t make that decision for others, or ending slavery would burden the economy with too many mouths to feed, or it’s regrettable that we’ll never be able to really eliminate it so we should just focus on making it safe and humane, etc, etc. But even if some of them did believe slavery was moral, they were wrong.

OH.