So African women are getting mostly through anal sex with bisexual/gay men and/or needles. Nothing new there.
Untrue. AIDS in Africa is rampant amongst heterosexuals and would be here too if unsafe sex was as prevalent in America as if it was there. As it is, most of the heterosexuals in the U.S. infected with AIDS in this country today were infected by heterosexual partners. This isn’t 1980 anymore. Whether it was originally transmitted to the heterosexual population by closeted or bisexual men, it is unfortunately spredding well enough without them today.[/quote]
Well in the black community here in the USA it is a well known and documented fact that a lot of women catch the virus by having sex with down low men. If down low (i call them low down) men was eliminated overnight by some act of God then the hiv in the black community would plummet. The only risk factor for hiv would be sharing IV needles. Because no matter how you slice it, male homosexuals are by and large responsible for the hiv epidemic. I know its not politically correct to say so, but its truth anyhow.
I really wish the truth about gays would just be allowed to be spoken, but the high priests of political correctness would never allow it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
[…]So you think the CDC is non-political and has no bias? If so, then why do they report the incidence of HIV in the hetro population with multiple partners to be much lower than the homosexual population with multiple partners and then still blame multiple partners and not the act itself?[/quote]
The CDC’s job is not to blame - but to keep infectious diseases in check. They are very clear about risk behaviour and they use the approach which works best. I don’t think you can assume they are biased just because they don’t put blame around.
No to the first - the anus seems to be highly sensible and arousable for that purpose. Yes to the second - that much is obvious.
This has nothing to do with PC. I wouldn’t simplify this too much - it depends on the partner and whom they had what type of sex with.
[quote][…]I believe that it was these arguments that are the main issue. I don’t believe the majority of Californians care about gays being in a ‘union’. In fact, the domestic partners law in CA went into effect years ago that allows gays all the same rights in CA as marriage and no one had any issues with that.
The main issue is the redefining of a religious institution (marriage). With marriage currently being a legal and not religious sanction, the fear that gay marriage could change the legal definition and obligations of marriage is a very real potential outcome.[/quote]
I agree that the people of California have to sort out how they define marriage - as something legal or as something religious.
So African women are getting mostly through anal sex with bisexual/gay men and/or needles. Nothing new there.
Untrue. AIDS in Africa is rampant amongst heterosexuals and would be here too if unsafe sex was as prevalent in America as if it was there. As it is, most of the heterosexuals in the U.S. infected with AIDS in this country today were infected by heterosexual partners. This isn’t 1980 anymore. Whether it was originally transmitted to the heterosexual population by closeted or bisexual men, it is unfortunately spredding well enough without them today.
Well in the black community here in the USA it is a well known and documented fact that a lot of women catch the virus by having sex with down low men. If down low (i call them low down) men was eliminated overnight by some act of God then the hiv in the black community would plummet. The only risk factor for hiv would be sharing IV needles. Because no matter how you slice it, male homosexuals are by and large responsible for the hiv epidemic. I know its not politically correct to say so, but its truth anyhow.
I really wish the truth about gays would just be allowed to be spoken, but the high priests of political correctness would never allow it.
[/quote]
It’s also a known and documented fact that a lot of black (and white) women also get it from husbands and boyfriends who cheat on them and have unprotected sex with other WOMEN. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with reality. In the 80s, the evidence does tend to show that AIDS came to heterosexuals largely through gay and closeted men. Today it’s unfortunately firmly entrenched among heterosexuals and it doesn’t take the ‘evil gays’ to spread it. All it takes is promiscuity and unsafe sex.
Lorisco’s information about the CDC is false. Last I checked, they report statistics and facts. The ones they report are accurate. Mainly that anal sex is more conducive to spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. They report this. And unprotected sex is MUCH more likely to spread AIDS than protected sex. They report that AIDS is more prevalent in gay men than heterosexuals. Not something they gloss over.
And it’s no surprise. Gay men obviously have more anal sex. And they unfortunately have more unprotected sex too.
Anal sex is much more likely to spread HIV that vaginal sex. This is a fact. Heterosexuals have unprotected sex all the time and don’t contract HIV. None of my promiscuous friends use condoms, and all of them remain HIV-free after hundreds of women.
It’s not a protected/unprotected sex issue in the gay community. Gay sex is inherently riskier.
So African women are getting mostly through anal sex with bisexual/gay men and/or needles. Nothing new there.
Untrue. AIDS in Africa is rampant amongst heterosexuals and would be here too if unsafe sex was as prevalent in America as if it was there. As it is, most of the heterosexuals in the U.S. infected with AIDS in this country today were infected by heterosexual partners. This isn’t 1980 anymore.
Whether it was originally transmitted to the heterosexual population by closeted or bisexual men, it is unfortunately spredding well enough without them today.
Well in the black community here in the USA it is a well known and documented fact that a lot of women catch the virus by having sex with down low men. If down low (i call them low down) men was eliminated overnight by some act of God then the hiv in the black community would plummet.
The only risk factor for hiv would be sharing IV needles. Because no matter how you slice it, male homosexuals are by and large responsible for the hiv epidemic. I know its not politically correct to say so, but its truth anyhow.
I really wish the truth about gays would just be allowed to be spoken, but the high priests of political correctness would never allow it.
It’s also a known and documented fact that a lot of black (and white) women also get it from husbands and boyfriends who cheat on them and have unprotected sex with other WOMEN. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with reality.
In the 80s, the evidence does tend to show that AIDS came to heterosexuals largely through gay and closeted men. Today it’s unfortunately firmly entrenched among heterosexuals and it doesn’t take the ‘evil gays’ to spread it. All it takes is promiscuity and unsafe sex.[/quote]
If you study the way hiv is spread and the nature of sex, you will find that it is much more difficult for a man to catch it from a woman than a woman to catch it from a man. Although its possible for a man to get it from a woman, its still difficult and much rarer.
A man is more likely to get it one of two ways…from gay sex or if he shares IV needles to shoot heroin. Thats just a fact, so a man who gets it is more likely to get it from gay sex than hetero sex, which brings me back to the point that most women who catch it are catching it from men living secret gay lifestyles.
So African women are getting mostly through anal sex with bisexual/gay men and/or needles. Nothing new there.
Untrue. AIDS in Africa is rampant amongst heterosexuals and would be here too if unsafe sex was as prevalent in America as if it was there. As it is, most of the heterosexuals in the U.S. infected with AIDS in this country today were infected by heterosexual partners. This isn’t 1980 anymore. Whether it was originally transmitted to the heterosexual population by closeted or bisexual men, it is unfortunately spredding well enough without them today.
Well in the black community here in the USA it is a well known and documented fact that a lot of women catch the virus by having sex with down low men. If down low (i call them low down) men was eliminated overnight by some act of God then the hiv in the black community would plummet. The only risk factor for hiv would be sharing IV needles. Because no matter how you slice it, male homosexuals are by and large responsible for the hiv epidemic. I know its not politically correct to say so, but its truth anyhow.
I really wish the truth about gays would just be allowed to be spoken, but the high priests of political correctness would never allow it.
It’s also a known and documented fact that a lot of black (and white) women also get it from husbands and boyfriends who cheat on them and have unprotected sex with other WOMEN. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with reality. In the 80s, the evidence does tend to show that AIDS came to heterosexuals largely through gay and closeted men. Today it’s unfortunately firmly entrenched among heterosexuals and it doesn’t take the ‘evil gays’ to spread it. All it takes is promiscuity and unsafe sex.[/quote]
There is no evidence for this claim. I defy you to produce evidence for a none-IV drug using heterosexual HIV phenomenon, whether in the 80s or later.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I gave you answer after answer, and all you replied with was circular and repititive questions. Perfect example: I told you that I thought that between the competing social policies of incentivizing children to be born and raised to their biological parents and incentivizing gay couples to get married to raise kids outside the biological coupling, the former should win, and the latter should lose.
[/quote]
You are a joke, because you arbitrarily assign rules on the benefits that should be attached to marriage rather than addressing the underlying purpose of benefiting the couple, their children, and society.
Yes, it is nice to incent people not to have children out of wedlock. Yet this rule doesn’t apply to infertile straight couples, so you create another rule highlighting how marriage benefits them as well.
However, you ignore that marriage also benefits gay couples, their children, and society.
Why?
That is the question you continue to dodge, and that I will continue to ask until you address it.
If marriage benefits the couple, their children, and society, why the hell would you want to oppose it?
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]You were saying that there is no slippery slope. There is.
The topics aren’t even remotely related - that much becomes obvious from the places which are more liberal wrt gay partnerships.
Makkun[/quote]
I refuse to believe you can’t see the connection. We’re redefining the definition of marriage to be between “one man and one woman” to “one man/one woman, two men, or two women.” What’s more, we’re doing it without a morally sound reason for doing so. Gays want this not because they want to get married, (for we know they are overwhelmingly promiscuous and incapable of stable relationships), but because they want to impose their values onto everyone else. What is to stop the Muslims from doing the same thing? Women are property in their culture, and polygamy is used as a means of cementing tribal bonds and perpetuating tribal structure. Just what we need - more tribalism!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gay sex is inherently riskier. [/quote]
You may want to change your statement to something like the following:
I know you don’t like to consider cases like my partner and me, but it is actually possible for gays to live together in committed monogamous relationships.
[quote]makkun wrote:
The CDC’s job is not to blame - but to keep infectious diseases in check. They are very clear about risk behaviour and they use the approach which works best. I don’t think you can assume they are biased just because they don’t put blame around.
[/quote]
You are not following here. The CDC is quick to ‘blame’ IV drug use on the spread of HIV. They don’t say multiple IV drug use with many different drugs do they? No. They say IV drug use, period. So why do they just not say anal sex is the issue instead of multiple partner anal sex? Why? Because they are a government agency, which like all government agencies, is affected by the political environment.
Sounds like you could use an anatomy and physiology lessen. But the button line is that just because the body has a hole doesn’t mean it was meant or evolved for the purpose of having something stuck in it. Regardless of how you want to twist it the anus and rectum are not sex organs.
Just so you get this; when the doctor told you as a kid that you shouldn’t stick foreign objects in your nose or ears; that also included your butt.
So you admit the risk is by type of sex. Seems we are making progress.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gay sex is inherently riskier. [/quote]
You may want to change your statement to something like the following:
I know you don’t like to consider cases like my partner and me, but it is actually possible for gays to live together in committed monogamous relationships.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gay sex is inherently riskier.
You may want to change your statement to something like the following:
Promiscuous sex is inherently riskier.
[/quote]
Forlife, I’m interested in data and facts. Promiscuous sex is riskier, but not riskier than gay sex. Gay sex is riskier by far, as it is much easier to penetrate through the thin cell walls of the rectum into blood than it is to do the same with the vagina. The cell layers of the vagina are much thicker and much more robust and adapted to friction than those of the rectum. The rectum, by design (or accident of evolution, whatever you want to call it), is exit only. It just can’t handle the rigors of sex, which is why gay men so easily transmit diseases to one another.
[quote]
I know you don’t like to consider cases like my partner and me, but it is actually possible for gays to live together in committed monogamous relationships.[/quote]
You’ve been with your partner what, 1 year? A year and a half? You and your partner are sitting on nearly the absolute upper tail of the distribution. Where does the mean sit? We know the answer.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Forlife, I’m interested in data and facts. Promiscuous sex is riskier, but not riskier than gay sex.[/quote]
If you’re interested in data and facts, prove that promiscuous sex is not riskier than gay sex.
You really want people to believe that promiscuous hetero sex is safer than sex in a committed gay partnership? Seriously?
Nearly all of my gay friends are also in committed monogamous relationships. I know one couple that has been together for more than 50 years.
Sorry if that destroys your stereotype of gays fucking everything that moves, but it is the truth. You can’t categorically deny rights to an entire class of people based on the behavior of only some of the people in that target group.
Out of curiousity, would you support marriage for committed monogamous gay couples?
The vagina is meant to be penetrated the butthole is not.
And as for gays being in monogamous relationships, thats a lie and if it happens it is the exception rather than the rule. Many studies show gay relationships dont last. I used to work with a dyke at my old job and she told me that in their lifestyle, a relationship lasting 5 years or longer was a rare thing.
So your couple thats been together 50 years maybe true, but they are an anomaly. I mean can anyone on here remember the last time they seen an old gay couple? Not once have I ever seen it in my life up to this point.
[quote]If you’re interested in data and facts, prove that promiscuous sex is not riskier than gay sex.
[/quote]
LOL. Yeah, heterosexuals are dropping like flies from HIV, right? You really just don’t like science:
Great, so you self-select your friends based on who maintains a similar lifestyle to you, in this case, monogamous gay men. Whoopee. Thanks for presenting a few data points. You and your friends still don’t change the gaussian distribution for the rest of the gay population which, unfortunately, includes promiscuity and disease:
[quote]
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.
In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%.
And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
Another large survey found that only 7 % of male homosexuals had been in a relationship that had lasted more than ten years. Source: K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report, (New York: Summit, 1979), pp. 339-40.
Homosexual author Seymour Kleinberg: “The prodigiousness of sex really depends deeply on change, and promiscuity is the easiest kind of change for gay men.” Source: Seymour Klienberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1980), p. 171.
In a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38.
A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.
Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexual males for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual author Dennis Altman even admitted: " now there is a move toward claiming that this (promiscuity) is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships…
(t) he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of gay life style." Source: Dennis Altman, " The Homosexualization of America, The Americanization of the Homosexual, (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982) pp. 16-7.
According to the American Psychological Association, after the AIDS epidemic the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year. Source: Sally Ann Stewart, " AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men," USA Today, 21 November 1984.
The 1984 book the "The Male Couple " was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D, who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that “gay” couples lacked stability and long-term relationships.
Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.
A Los Angeles study conducted in the late 1980s found that male homosexuals averaged over 20 partners per year. Source: L. Linn et al., " Recent Sexual Behaviors Among Homosexual Men Seeking Primary Medical Care," Archives of Internal Medicine 149 (December 1989): pp. 2685-90.
Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: " gay men aren’t very good at having and holding lovers…(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men."
And according to them, the average homosexual male first “seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. " The cheating ratio of ‘married’ [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.” Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen," After the Ball," (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.
In Spain, the average homosexual sexual encounters for men were 42 per year in 1989. Source: Rodriguez-Pichardo, A., et al " Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain," Genitourin Med, 1990; Vol. 66, pp. 423-27.
“Gay” monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., "
Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.
A three-year study in Boston found that 77% of 481 male subjects had had more than 10 partners in the previous 5 years, 34% more than 50 partners in the previous 5 years. Source: G. R. Seage III et al., " The Relation Between Nitrite Inhalants, Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Risk of Immunodeficiency Virus Infection," American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (January 1, 1992), p. 5.
The Washington Post reported in 1993 that despite all the AIDS education for almost a decade " increasing numbers of gay men…are lapsing into previous patterns of unsafe sexual practices…� Source: Andriote, John-Manuel, " Gay Men and Unsafe Sex: Bridging a Gap Between Knowledge and Behavior," The Washington Post, August 10, 1993, Z14.
Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).
The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they’ve had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.
A survey of 239 gay and bisexual males between the ages of 13 to 21 found that despite accurately understanding the odds of HIV infection, 63% participated in behavior that put them at “extreme high risk.” Source: Ramafedi, Gary, " Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Beliefs and Behavior," Pediatrics, August 1994, vol. 94, no.2, pp. 163-168.
Cf., Lemp, George F., et al, " Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men - The San Francisco/Berkeley Young Men’s survey," Journal of the American Medical Association, August 10, 1994, vol. 272, no.6, pp.449-454.
Another story in The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term “monogamous” relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a “primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. " The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men,” The Advocate, August 23, 1994.
A Los Angeles Study of young homosexual males in 1996 revealed that about 50% of those between 15 to 22 years of age had engaged in " high-risk, unprotected sex" during the previous 6 months. Source: Bettina Boxall, " Young Gays stray from Safe Sex, New Data Shows," Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1996, sec. A.
" The facts, enough gay men are once again having enough unsafe sex that the rates of HIV infection, gonorrhea and syphilis are returning to frightening heights. " Source: Kramer, Larry, " Gay Culture, Redefined," The New York Times, December 12, 1997, op ed page.
An upscale homosexual men’s magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. Here are some of the results: " One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples."
52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. Source: LaBarbera, Peter, " Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners," The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.
Some men who have sex with men (MSM) may be recruiting sex partners in anonymous venues more often now than in the recent past. Source: Sowell Rl, Lindsey C, Spicer T, “Group sex in gay men: its meaning and HIV prevention implications,” Journal of Association of Nurses AIDS Care, 1998; Vol. 9: pp.59-71.
Studies consistently show age differences in the sexual activities of gay men. Younger men have more partners, a greater frequency of sex, “cruise” more and have shorter relationships than older men, while older men are more likely to pay for sex. Source:
Gilmore, MR, Schwartz, P, Civic, D, (1999), The social context of sexuality: The case of the United States, In KK Holmes, PA Mardh, PF Sparling, SM Lemon, WE Stamm, P Piot, & JN Wasserhelt (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 23 (2). pp.109-114.
When STDs are introduced into the gay community, the size of the subsequent outbreak depends on the sexual mixing patterns of the gay community, the numbers of sex partners, concurrency of sexual partnerships, condom use, and frequency of partner change which at times can be great in the gay community.
Source: Aral SQ., " sexual network patterns as determinants of STD rates: paradigm shift in behavioral Epidemiology of STDs made visible," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 26; pp. 262-264.
Judy Wieder, editor in chief of The Advocate, wrote that according to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively - (males) are much more interested in causal sex and non monogamous relationships.
In the same article, Gretchen Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff writers wanted to “even cruise for sex as gay men do.” Source: " Do gay men and lesbians get along?� XY Magazine, July 1999, no.20, p. 77.
Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in “steady relationships”. 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed “clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification” between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected.
Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.
The following study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) July 26th issue. A Cross-sectional survey conducted September 1999 through April 2000 with a total of 856 clients of the Denver Public Health HIV Counseling and testing Site in Colorado.
69.2% of the survey were men, 34.7% were homosexual or bisexual, and aged 20 to 50 years represented 84.1% of participants. The results show that 21.8% of those seeking sex over the internet had a history of STDs, 88.7% solicited oral sex, 41% had anal sex and 16.8% reported being sexually exposed to a person known to have HIV infection.
Table 3 showed 135 (15.8%) of clients reporting that they had logged on to the internet to seek sex partners, and 88 (65.2%) of these having successfully initiated sexual contact: of those who had sex with more than 3 different Internet partners over a 6 month period was 34 (38.7%).
Table 4 showed the majority of online seekers were men (65.2%), white (76.2%), and between the ages of 20 to 39 (63.2%). Also table 4 revealed that 67.7% of on line sex seekers were either homosexual or bisexual and that 76.7% meet and had homosexual sex encounters via the Internet.
This led the researchers to conclude the following: Online seekers were more likely to be homosexual than offline clients and online partners were more likely to be homosexual than the online-no partner group.
Finally, Table 5 reveals that online sex seekers were more likely to have had an STD and that 28.9% of online seekers reported exposing themselves to known HIV-positive partners. 63.4% and 72.9% respectively were homosexual sex encounters with 97% being oral sex and 69.4% being anal sex.
Source: M. McFarlane, PhD., S.S. Bull, PhD., MPH., C.A. Rietmeijer, MD.,MPH., " The internet as a newly Emerging Risk Environment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases," Journal of American Medical Association, July 26, 2000: pp. 443-446.
Men’s Health magazine reported in June that (heterosexual) men, on average, have 12.4 sex partners (in a lifetime), and have sex 1.5 times per week. These numbers may seem low to many gay men, who generally exercise greater sexual freedom than their heterosexual counterparts. But for a person who is sexually compulsive these numbers may seem shockingly low.
Frequent sexual encounters may be accompanied by feelings or guilt and minor consequences. Ken (a gay man) suffers from Sexual Addiction, "It’s just so much easier to have anonymous sex with someone I don’t know.
There is this buildup of excitement and a sexual rush, hoping the other guy will notice me…want me. After we connect, I just lose myself in the sex. It’s really not about knowing the guy. I rarely even want to know his name. When it’s over, I can simply walk away, " said Ken.
Among the problems caused by sexual addiction in “gay” men is one of the most common of contracting frequent and/or multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) ( i.e., HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, etc.). Source: Shaun Bourget, M.A., M.F.T., " Sexual Addition: On a Road to Nowhere," GayHealth.com; July 26,2000. [/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]I refuse to believe you can’t see the connection. We’re redefining the definition of marriage to be between “one man and one woman” to “one man/one woman, two men, or two women.” What’s more, we’re doing it without a morally sound reason for doing so.
Gays want this not because they want to get married, (for we know they are overwhelmingly promiscuous and incapable of stable relationships),[…][/quote]
I disagree with that assertion.
I disagree with that assertion.
Our laws which keep polygamy illegal - as opposed to consential homosexual relationships. Also, most polygynic arrangements tend to infringe on the hard fought for womens’ rights to self-determination. For most of us, it’s really easy to see that difference.
We’re not tribal societies - and we’ve put values and rights into place to keep us from falling back. I’m surprised at your lack of trust in plural, free, secular and democratic societies.
Earth to Makkun: that’s what this whole gay “marriage” thing is about: changing the laws to make it legal. You’re argument is now “polygamy is wrong because it’s illegal?”
So what? The Muslims don’t believe in women’s “self determination.” They think it’s wrong. Should we now allow them to change the definition? We’re arguing over what “ought” to be here.
I’m surprised at your “lack of trust.” We’ve voted DEMOCRATICALLY on this issue in California twice. It’s been overturned by the gay militants who take the issue to activist judges. You talk about the “values” we’ve put into place, but are railing against them at every turn. NEWSFLASH: one of the “values” we had in place that moved us out tribalism was monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. The Arabs, Pashtuns, and other Muslims have tribalism because of their practices of a) first cousin marriage and b) polygyny, both of which are “values” this society has rejected.
You’re argument contains no consistency, no facts, and no data.