Study: More Americans say they have had gay sex

well I didn't nail it, harvard nailed it... I guess as a result of my age, and my access at the time to research documents lends me a lot more information than most people had back then, today things are on the internet, assuming it ever made it to see the light of day... thats why it was such a shame to see such an early promising study to get squashed by political pressure and the threat that this would prove something was "wrong" with them and could be "fixed"... thats a threat to any movement...

the interesting part is there was no single body chemical that did the trick, it was dozens of different chemicals that had to be balanced, and in each person it was different, at least in the study back then... it shows there are numerous reasons likely causing it, so there would likely never be a "magic pill" to fix it, but uniquely specialized medicine, similar to what we're approaching now with cancer, where treatments are being created unique for each person on the specific genetic level of each patient...

 

If his religious belief was to not bake a cake why would he become a baker that sales cake? Oh it was about the money - something his religion actually says is the pathway to damnation...

Naw, the left isn't trying to outlaw heterosexuality like the right is trying to do with homosexuality. But A+ for the attemp, D- for the execution.

It needs more fear and rhetoric to be picked up by the social cons. Try instead: in 20 years all heterosexuals will be murderd in the streets because gay people are secretly buying up all the guns and ammo so they can no longer protect themselves. Also throw in something about protecting children and religious freedom to stone <insert whoever you don't like here> and you have a new talking point! Congrats!

 

I disagree. Mind you this is a discussion forum. If one is passionate then they will go the "extra mile" to be heard. That in itself does not warrant being labeled the opposite of what they are trying to communicate. Coming to that conclusion is looking at the world with blinders on. Open your own eyes/horizons... there's a huge amount of people out here who don't agree with everything you have to say either. But ain't that what makes PF fun?

 

I think this is a very fair thing to say. Most people are like "You wanna control bedrooms". Yeah, don't flatter yourselves. I couldn't care less whether a guy knocks a guy, a girl licks a girl or whatever(provided of course, it's consensual). What people want, is basic decent public behavior. That is all. I've phrased it in this way: There's a public sphere(you know, localities and communities) and then there's the private sphere(Home).

Here's the thing: Everyone, Liberals included, EVERYONE wants the public sphere to be like their private sphere. That's only human nature. No politics involved. But the most reasonable and logical among us(yours truly) knows that isn't possible. The public sphere is never going to concede 100% to my views, no matter how much I egotistically think I'm correct(Muwahahaha )

So, what do I settle for? A consensus. A bridge of ideas that people generally agree with. Unfortunately, some people wanted to renegade on the consensus and try to create a public sphere for certain groups over others. And then was born the Christian Right. The solution, is for both sides to chill out, and try to remember what we agreed on: No one gets everything, but everyone should get something.

 

It's actually NOT about the money, otherwise he would have made the cake.

No, what I said, about being straight being politically incorrect is more accurate than your prediction about murdering non gays in the street because what I said has already started, you see, in a Wisconsin college a straight pride event was banned.

 

A society going down the road without guard rails will end up in the ditch.

 

It was absolutely about the money from the general public. Why would someone want to open a business that could potentially make them run afoul of the law or might go against their moral principles? A bakery could have been opened in a church or it could have been a members only club but instead they chose to follow an open to the public facility. They chose this outcome.

I was being sarcastic, I don't think heterosexuals need worry about their orientation not being correct - we are physically designed for procreation.

The pride event was canceled because it was not about celebrating heterosexuals, it was simply an event to bash homosexuals. You're better than that.

 

Not offended. Standing in stupor at the amount of energy some people invest into worrying about the sex lives of other people, and then turning that energy into politicizing the private lives of common individuals, and seeking to empower large government to police them, all while claiming government is the problem, not the solution.

You people are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bewildering.

 

My opinion ensures the freedom of all citizens of the union to have sex with any consenting adult they choose. Yours arbitrarily decides who gets what rights.

Tell me, which is the more free of the two?

Religious liberty is not an argument, since there can be no liberty in a system designed to enslave people to fictitious entities of uknowable power.

 

Since government provide special benefits for gay sex, more people get engaged.

 

So just 1.7% of men and 0.9% of women are gay ... but we're told this is "normal" behavior. That's quite a spin on the truth.

A lot more people than that believe the moon landings were a hoax.

 

there is no religious belief that allows you to break the law. baking a cake violates no religious belief on the planet.

 

nobody gets special benefits for gay sex. stop posting stupid (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Ewwwww.

 

people can claim marriage benefits if they are engaged in homosexual activity.
It is actually very simple, if government recognizes homosexual activity as something valuable (i.e. worth paying benefits) then more people are trying to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

baking a wedding cake is something different from baking a cake.

 

For the first time...maybe ever?


Homophobes have no candidate in the Presidential election-

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html?_r=0

 

which would put it at about 1.3% of the population chooses the gay lifestyle

why are we suspending religious freedom to Christians for 1.3% of the population which chooses a deviant sexual lifestyle?

 

Attraction is not a choice.

 

Only polyheterosexual orientation is prosecuted and effectively prohibited.

 

Polyheterosexual?

You mean multiple Hetero partners?

Where is that illegal anywhere in America?

 

ok? they can also claim them if they aren't.

lol, no

really? what different ingredients and baking method makes them different?

- - - Updated - - -

nobody chooses to be gay. no religious freedoms are suspended. please stop lying.

 

Please cool it with the baiting and discuss the topic instead.

Thanks
Shangrila

 

`
Good luck with that.

 

All the usual misconceptions and anti-gay nonsense on display here.

I wish (though I realize it's an exercise in futility) that people could learn to distinguish between 'gay' as an identity arising from an enduring, primary same-sex orientation, versus behavior between people of the same sex which isn't necessarily tied to such an orientation.

Orientation is not an exclusive driver of sexual behavior. Men who fool around with other men aren't always gay. Calling it 'gay sex' just serves to confuse the issues. It can also take a variety of forms; there are a number of things that some men won't do with other men, because they think of some acts as 'more gay' than others. Kinda like some people don't consider sexual behavior between people of the opposite sex to really be 'sex' unless certain parts are inserted into certain other parts.

It's all a lot of nonsense.

If you picture a particular act when you hear the phrase 'gay sex', the thing you're imagining is going to be way off base much of the time, arguably even most of the time.

If you don't want to fool around sexually with someone of the same sex, then don't - and mind your own business, instead of sticking your nose into others' and then complaining that it's being crammed down your throat (figuratively speaking.)

As for whether or not there's a real increase in "gay sex" ( ), I doubt it. Just more honesty with it becoming less of a taboo. Possibly some people are feeling less afraid of experimenting with same sex behavior, but I seriously doubt that it's likely to produce more gay people. I just don't buy that engaging in same-sex behavior creates the orientation; that certainly doesn't jive with my personal experience, nor with that of many other gay people - because we aren't oriented toward the behavior; we're attracted to the same-sex (as in, certain traits connected to gender) and the behavior is an off-shoot of that.

 

I've seen no proof of attempts to stop the spread of HIV. Come on, cd8ed, you almost sound like you're from the 50's... The girls these days are as horny, or hornier than the guys in most areas of the US. You can encourage monogamous relationships and safe sex among the gay community but how much good is that going to do? And how much good has it already done? None whatsoever.