Since I was back there I thought that I would also post this one from March as well:
Note that one of the studies was from a gay magazine.
It seems that homosexuals are very promiscuious!
Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 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 only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10 A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime.
The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” [/quote]
Do we need look any further to realize exactly why there is an AIDS epidemic?
"Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with HIV "continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV."4 Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.5 A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.
(You guessed it…March again. I think I would change “not very bright” to “not very honorable.”)
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Firstly, love stories to me are boring unless they can be told in a way where they are not the main focus of the film. Personally, I prefer when there isn’t a happy ending–kinda like real life sometimes.[/quote]
I think it’s cool that you decided to watch the movie, even if love stories don’t normally interest you. Not sure what you mean about a happy ending though…the ending definitely wasn’t happy in Brokeback.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is no amount of evidence which will convince you that placing your penis in another mans rectum is not a healthy thing to do.
[/quote]
You’re still dodging the question, Zeb. I’m not going to get diverted by your other rants because I want an honest answer.
I’m not asking you if you think anal sex is healthy. I’m not asking if you think homosexuality is righteous. I’m not asking if you find homosexuality disgusting and repulsive.
I’m asking if you agree that entering into a legally binding union, with financial and social consequences, would be more likely to keep people together.
Makes perfect sense that it would. After all, that is one of the main reasons for marriage. It is a binding ceremony that is designed to strengthen and sustain a relationship over the long term. As such, it works regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.
If you have a logical or empirical rebuttal to THIS POINT (as opposed to strawmen arguments), I’m all ears.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gays want special rights. Currently there is no law on the books which states that two people of the same sex can marry.
[/quote]
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, at one time there was no law on the books which allowed people of different races to marry. Were blacks wanting “special rights” because they were unable to marry whites? After all, they could marry other blacks couldn’t they?
The fallacy of your logic is that you fail to acknowledge which right we are talking about here:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you can do that then I can draw any sort of comparison with any two (or more) groups and claim that it’s valid. And that would be equally foolish.
[/quote]
No, it wouldn’t be…as long as the comparison was based on a commonality. I am simply pointing out that blacks, women, and gays have all been discriminated against by the majority. And the people that have done the discriminating have never admitted to being bigots. They genuinely believed that they were in the right, and in all three cases they quoted the bible to support their stance.
It was interesting to hear an interview on NPR yesterday with Robert Byrd. He is now the longest seated Senator in our history. At one time, he belonged to the KKK and he opposed granting equal rights to blacks. He now recognizes that what he did was wrong…but at the time he held those views, he sincerely believed that he was in the right.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals.[/quote]
This blatantly omits a pretty important fact: having sex in a committed relationship significantly reduces the risk of transmitting any kind of STD. As long as both partners are clean, the risk of transmission is zero, regardless of how often they have sex.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>. [/quote]
I’m asking if you agree that entering into a legally binding union, with financial and social consequences, would be more likely to keep people together.[/quote]
Is this the third or fourth time I answered this question?
Okay here we go again: NO! I think there is clear evidence which I have posted on this thread which would lead an objective person (not you) to believe that the majority of homosexuals are incapable of having a long term monogamous relationship.
And in addition to that the jury is still out on why people are gay and I think that is an important question before we change a 5000+ year old institution for less than 1% of the population.
Oh…and if you want to ask me a fifth time the answer will be the same.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gays want special rights. Currently there is no law on the books which states that two people of the same sex can marry.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, at one time there was no law on the books which allowed people of different races to marry. Were blacks wanting “special rights” because they were unable to marry whites? After all, they could marry other blacks couldn’t they?
The fallacy of your logic is that you fail to acknowledge which right we are talking about here:
The right to marry the person you love.[/quote]
LOL come on forlife you are a bright young (okay 40 isn’t that young) gay male, use your head.
Whites had the right to marry. Blacks wanted that right.
Whites had the right to eat wherever they wanted. Blacks wanted that right.
Whites had the right to sit at the front of the bus. Blacks wanted that right.
Whites had rights that blacks did not have.
Blacks wanted all the rights that whites had. They did not want any additonal rights beyond what whites had.
Um…get it yet?
Homosexuals want special rights! Rights that currently do not exist for anyone.
Are you with me? No probably not.
Hence, the two (blacks/gays) do not equate.
Please continue to try to put a square peg in a round hole…it’s funny stuff.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If you can do that then I can draw any sort of comparison with any two (or more) groups and claim that it’s valid. And that would be equally foolish.
No, it wouldn’t be…as long as the comparison was based on a commonality.[/quote]
Oh I think I understand now.
You want to compare blacks to gays because they are both minority groups. But you see that’s where the “commonality” pretty much ends.
Right?
Well I want to compare gays to polygamists. And I think the comparison is even closer than with blacks. As you said there must be a “commonality.”
Well there might be several between gays and polygamists.
1-Both groups have sex in a non traditional way.
2- Both groups currently want the right to marry whom ever they please regardless of societal norms, laws etc.
3- Both groups seem to eschew traditional Christian principals.
4-Neither group has proven that their sexual preference is genetic. And in fact many facts line up to offer evidence that it is more nurture than nature.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals.
This blatantly omits a pretty important fact: having sex in a committed relationship significantly reduces the risk of transmitting any kind of STD. As long as both partners are clean, the risk of transmission is zero, regardless of how often they have sex.
[/quote]
But you forgot about the studies that demonstrate that most homosexuals are incapable of having a long term committed relationship.
Promiscuous and also not very bright!
Do we need look any further to realize exactly why there is an AIDS epidemic?
"Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with HIV "continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV."4 Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.5 A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.
(You guessed it…March again. I think I would change “not very bright” to “not very honorable.”)
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“few homosexual relationships last longer than two years”
Hmmm…makes you wonder if allowing gays to marry might encourage them to stay together longer, eh?
[/quote]
Hmmm…makes you wonder if it’s worth changing a 5000+ year old institution for less than 1% of the population who cannot seem to have any sort of committed monogamous relationship is worth it, eh?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
Canada huh?
[/quote]
that comment just reinforces what we already know about you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Okay here we go again: NO! I think there is clear evidence which I have posted on this thread which would lead an objective person (not you) to believe that the majority of homosexuals are incapable of having a long term monogamous relationship.
[/quote]
How can you possibly claim that your “evidence” has any bearing, when gay marriage was not made available to the people you condemn for being non-monogamous? Are you serious?
The only way you could possibly measure whether gay marriage encourages people to stay together is to look at the length of relationships for married gay couples vs. nonmarried gay couples.
It is logical to assume that marriage would encourage people to stay together. After all, there are negative legal, social and financial consequences to leaving a marriage vs. leaving an open relationship.
