[quote]Mick28 wrote:
That’s funny, in another thread that you took part in you brag about going out on the prowl and looking for guys.[/quote]
That’s interesting, since I’ve been in a 100% monogamous relationship with my partner for the past year. We just celebrated our anniversary on Saturday. Sorry if that breaks your stereotype, but it’s the truth.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The fact remains that if the typical homosexual can become aroused with a woman and have sex with her and then also have sex with another man…that’s a choice that he’s making.[/quote]
You never answered my question about being able to enjoy the same level of intimacy on all levels with another man. Could you choose to do it? If not, why not?
Sexual orientation is about more than who you bone. It’s about who you love and connect with on all levels. I found it impossible to enjoy true intimacy with a woman, no matter how much I wanted to do so.
Read the statistics on kids raised in foster care, and compare those statistics with kids raised by same sex parents. The kids with gay parents are far better off. Again, sorry if that destroys your stereotype of the evil gays but it is the truth.
Are you really? What is this “gay lifestyle” then? My partner and I took my kids to my mom’s house on Saturday, where we went swimming and enjoyed a feast of mom’s homemade cooking. Sounds pretty insidious to me!
Straight marriage doesn’t suddenly produce heterosexuals who just want to be with one person their entire life, either. The point is that the legal responsibilities and benefits of marriage make it more likely that the couple will stay together, thus providing stability for the couple, their children, and society.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Are you that sick and twisted that you can’t see the difference between not wanting to promote the homosexual agenda but being able to tolerate it?[/quote]
Dude, anyone with the slightest amount of neutrality could read your posts in this thread and conclude that you are far from tolerant when it comes to homosexuality. Your posts are filled with vile.
Reparative therapy doesn’t change people’s sexual orientation, and in fact it doubles the rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and drug/alcohol abuse for people that go through it. Nice Christian values there!
[quote]Ha ha…what a bunch of shit.
Let me help you out oh twisted one[/quote]
I’m still waiting for an answer on the documented decrease in syphilis rates for married gay couples. You can throw a tantrum about how it is a “bunch of shit”, but do you have a substantive response to the research? The scientific evidence is clear, although I can see why you wouldn’t want to hear it.
I also like how your Dutch survey was about gay relationships, not about gay marriage. Nice red herring, but you just provided more reasons for granting the safety and stability of marriage to gay couples.
Nice unbiased reference you have there! Contrast that reference with scores of peer-reviewed studies published in respected scientific journals.
That is a blatant misrepresentation of the position held by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which affirms in their policy statement:
[quote]Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.
Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.
When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.[/quote]
Nice twisting of the facts, but the American Academy of Pediatrics and every other major medical and mental health organization disagrees with you.
Given your blatant lies in this post, I think you need to take a look in the mirror.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I’m just going by what you stated on another thread. Maybe your were just bragging about all of the gay conquests that you’ve had in your time as a single young gay blade.
Don’t know…and don’t care.[/quote]
If you want to reduce all those gay conquests that turn your stomach, you should support gay marriage/civil unions, which increase the chance of the couple staying together and decrease the disease rate.
So back to my question: how do you explain my partner and I living in a 100% committed monogamous relationship? It doesn’t jive with your stereotype, so you dismiss it?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You choose to screw men. That answers the question. As a straight guy I could never have and would never want sex with another man. But what’s interesting is that you can also have sex with a woman.[/quote]
I have several gay friends that never have and would never want sex with a woman. The only reason I did was because of my deep religious programming, which told me I was going to hell unless I got married to a woman.
You have no idea how you would respond in my situation, since you never experienced the equivalent of that programming growing up. If you grew up in a culture where the large majority of people were gay and your church told you that you had to be gay in order to go to heaven, who knows how you would have responded?
You can claim otherwise, but the fact is you have no idea and can have no idea, since you never experienced the programming in the first place.
The point, which you continue to ignore, is that despite 9 years of marriage I never enjoyed true intimacy with my wife, but I do enjoy true intimacy now with my partner. I couldn’t choose to enjoy intimacy with her, no matter how much I wanted to do so.
If I was bisexual, I could have enjoyed true intimacy with my wife. That wasn’t the case, despite 9 years of trying to do so.
Lies. I provided scientific research showing that gay married couples have a significantly lower separation and disease rate.
More lies. Your “Dutch data” was about unmarried gay relationships, not about married gay couples.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
The more a person’s perspective is rigidly black and white, the less amenable they are to reason and the more driven they are to legislate their beliefs on others.
You’ve just described yourself.
[/quote]
hypocrisy at its finest…not to mention that you’re also very gay.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
How come no response to the Dutch information about how married gay men can’t seem to remain faithful.
[/quote]
You’re blatantly misrepresenting the study, which was about unmarried gay couples. If you really wanted to increase stability in gay relationships, you would support gay marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Can we have a link that is unbiased (in either direction)? A peer-reviewed study in an established and respected journal would be nice.
See my earlier posts on gay marriage divorce rates and the reduction of syphilis due to gay marriage. I’ll provide more references if you are interested.[/quote]
Please. I’d like to see some links to more information if you have them.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
How come no response to the Dutch information about how married gay men can’t seem to remain faithful.
You’re blatantly misrepresenting the study, which was about unmarried gay couples. If you really wanted to increase stability in gay relationships, you would support gay marriage.
The Dutch study demonstrated that even with marriage rights gay men chose to have sex with multiple partners.
Once again you’re a liar.[/quote]
That study population was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, purposely EXCLUDED monogamous participants (it was a REQUIREMENT that participants had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months), was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty.
The study says nothing about nothing. They didn’t choose a cross-section of gay men in Amsterdam. The study was not at all designed to investigate the behavior of homosexuals in a society with broad ‘marriage’ rights.
The study was specifically designed to investigate the contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam.
The only participants in the study were REQUIRED to be promsicuous. The population was good for the purposes of the study, but in no way could it be said representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
The more a person’s perspective is rigidly black and white, the less amenable they are to reason and the more driven they are to legislate their beliefs on others.
You’ve just described yourself.
hypocrisy at its finest…not to mention that you’re also very gay.
Hey little boss is here…are you sure your hero professor post gave you permission to post? You know how mad he can get when you go off and do your own thing without his knowledge. But…hey as a couple I’m sure you’re able to talk things out.
Bye little boss.[/quote]
As usual…you’re projecting your “I’M RIGHT…EVERYONE IS WRONG…BUT I CAN’T BACK IT UP” complex…your humor is awesomeness…makes my muscle lump hard.
Still somewhat of a newb but reading these pissing matchs is fuckin’ funny! Keep ‘er goin’!!
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…your humor is awesomeness…makes my muscle lump hard.
How many times have I told you to keep your gay fantasies to yourself? Well…at least you’re in the right thread this time.[/quote]
If you had followed your own advice…you wouldn’t even be posting in this thread…You’re arguing about something you know nothing about…OR DO YOU?? LOL. Don’t get mad cause you have a liking for a strong black man.
I posted cause I hate you…you posted here because you’re gay…this is not quantum physics.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Please. I’d like to see some links to more information if you have them.[/quote]
Here you go:
Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: a multimethod comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads.
Forsaking All Others? The Effects of “Gay Marriage” on Risky Sex
[quote]One of the conjectured benefits of establishing the legal recognition of samesex partnerships is that it would promote a culture of responsibility and commitment among homosexuals.
A specific implication of this claim is that “gay marriage” will reduce the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI). In this study, I present a simple 2-period model, which provides a framework for discussing the ways in which gay marriage might reduce (or increase) the prevalence of STI.
Then, I present reduced-form empirical evidence on whether gay marriage has actually reduced STI rates. These evaluations are based on country-level panel data from Europe, where nations began introducing national recognition of same-sex partnerships in 1989.
The results suggest that these gay-marriage laws led to statistically significant reductions in syphilis rates. However, these effects were smaller and statistically imprecise with respect to gonorrhea and HIV.[/quote]
Same-sex domestic partnerships and lower-risk behaviors for STDs, including HIV infection.
[quote]Men in domestic partnerships had a statistically significantly lower prevalence of multiple partnerships, “one-night stands,” and unprotected anal intercourse with a non-primary partner than either men with steady partners not identified as domestic partners or men without a steady partner.
These findings were independent of age. Men in domestic partnerships had decreased risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, suggesting but not proving, that conferring legal status to same-sex unions might decrease sexual risk behavior.[/quote]
The close relationships of Lesbians and gay men.
[quote]Research about relationship formation, the division of household labor, power, satisfaction, sexuality, conflict, commitment, and relationship stability is presented.
Next, we highlight three recent research topics: the legalization of same-sex relationships through civil unions and same-sex marriage, the experiences of same-sex couples raising children, and the impact of societal prejudice and discrimination on same-sex partners.
We conclude with comments about the contributions of empirical research to debunking negative stereotypes of same-sex couples, testing the generalizability of theories about close relationships, informing our understanding of gender and close relationships, and providing a scientific basis for public policy.[/quote]
What same sex civil partnerships may mean for health.
[quote]A growing number of countries have introduced a form of marriage or civil partnership registration for same sex couples. Marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women and similar benefits could arise from same sex civil unions.
The authors argue that legal and social recognition of same sex relationships may reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships, and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people.[/quote]
Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children.
[quote]Same-sex marriage, barely on the political radar a decade ago, is a reality in America. How will it affect the well-being of children? Some observers worry that legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that same-sex parenting and opposite-sex parenting are interchangeable, when in fact they may lead to different outcomes for children.
To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting affects children.
After considering the methodological problems inherent in studying small, hard-to-locate populations–problems that have bedeviled this literature-the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing about as well as children normally do.
What the research does not yet show is whether the children studied are typical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. A second important question is how same-sex marriage might affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples.
Meezan and Rauch observe that marriage confers on children three types of benefits that seem likely to carry over to children in same-sex families. First, marriage may increase children’s material well-being through such benefits as family leave from work and spousal health insurance eligibility.
It may also help ensure financial continuity, should a spouse die or be disabled. Second, same-sex marriage may benefit children by increasing the durability and stability of their parents’ relationship.
Finally, marriage may bring increased social acceptance of and support for same-sex families, although those benefits might not materialize in communities that meet same-sex marriage with rejection or hostility.
The authors note that the best way to ascertain the costs and benefits of the effects of same-sex marriage on children is to compare it with the alternatives.
Massachusetts is marrying same-sex couples, Vermont and Connecticut are offering civil unions, and several states offer partner-benefit programs. Studying the effect of these various forms of unions on children could inform the debate over gay marriage to the benefit of all sides of the argument.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
That’s funny, in another thread that you took part in you brag about going out on the prowl and looking for guys.
That’s interesting, since I’ve been in a 100% monogamous relationship with my partner for the past year. We just celebrated our anniversary on Saturday. Sorry if that breaks your stereotype, but it’s the truth.[/quote]
Yay?