Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

absolutely and I haven't stopped beating my children yet either

 

So...what's the left analog of the FRC? Where do you see pervasive and consistent leftist bias? I can see it on the right. But you're a fish in the sea of leftist bias that won't see the water.

Prove me wrong.

 

Yes, you are confuse. Your opinions are not facts and your opinions are wrong.

 

What, you mean an organization that consistently lies and twists the facts to support an ideological agenda based on hatred of a minority? What's the capitalist analogue of Stalin? There doesn't have to be an analogue. You're still trying to imagine this as a fight of sides, when all too often, there isn't two sides. A leftist analogue to the FRC... I dunno, you wanna call Joe Mercola a leftist? Because there's a pretty decent analogue - someone who ignores the existing pathways of peer-review and scientific verification and proceeds to (*)(*)(*)(*) a whole bunch of complete crap all over the public discourse.

But this isn't even two sides, because what the FRC does isn't right-wing bias. It's anti-gay bias. There's nothing inherently conservative about hating gay people any more than there is anything inherently liberal about supporting gay people. An analogue to the FRC on the "other side" would not be a group like the APA that seems to lean slightly liberal (not because they're all leftists, but because the liberals have the science on their side on this one), it'd be a group that constantly falsifies studies and twists statistics to make claims like "rate of gay homosexuality contractions now below heterosexual rate" or "gay people proven to live longer than straight people". What's your comparison? The APA? A worldwide-renowned association of psychologists?

Meanwhile, you're perfectly willing to create a huge correlation-causation fallacy (or why do you think it matters that so many professors and PhDs are liberal?), assert that everything has two political sides, misattribute the views of the FRC, and generally politicize everything?

Prove yourself right. I'm not about to accept a proposition that essentially boils down to "virtually everyone in the fields of sociology, biology, psychology, and pediatrics is biased or hushed up." Oh, and while we're at it, tack on evolution. And climatology. And all of peer review for virtually every field. Especially when you've failed to provide any evidence for this incredibly wide-spread conspiracy.

 

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else.

 

Well done. There is no bias on the left, as predicted.

 

Except to get married.

 

Well, I'll maintain that I'm not the person asserting a similar level of bias between a localized anti-gay hate group and an internationally acclaimed scientific association. So yeah. Have fun being an unreasonable conspiracy theorist. I need to stop writing long responses to you, you haven't addressed even one point I've made since this discussion started.

 

Son, I am confuse.

 

It doesn't make it moot, the argument does not depend on the size of 10. It depends on the proportionally smaller size of the gay community to the heterosexual community.

Group size is part of it. So are the other factors. I never claimed group size was the only factor.

I didn't say you were blaming them.

 

seems pretty obvious to me

you're not presenting actual facts. you keep cherry picking statistics to suit your anti gay agenda.

 

No need to write another word. I know exactly where you're at. I have an explanation for every sentence I've read. In parting, I wish you the future maturity to see the bias all about you.

 

They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

 

Brothers and sisters don't have the right to marry each other either. And they may very much be in love and be having sex together. They do have rights to marry people they aren't related to by blood though. So it's their choice to not be married. We won't allow them to change the definition of marriage anymore than we would allow polygamists, minors or gays to.

Gay men are as a rule very promiscuous. That's why the numbers of new HIV cases just took a 34% increase jump in the last five years. Their iconic leader Harvey Milk was foremost about gay promiscuity for men. That was intrinsic to what his sexuality, and by extension the movement he represents, is all about.

The words "gay" and "promiscuous" are virtually synonymous for the purpose of this conversation.

 

They don't have the right to marry some of the same sex, which means there is a differential.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe in your mind....

I'm straight and I was a helluva lot more promiscuous then any of my gay friends.

 

And we have another poster bringing up an old nugget for no reason at all.

 

You do not understand that the main reason that brothers and sisters cannot marry because they limit their gene pool and would procreate any defective genes. The Royal Families of Europe found that out when they married their cousins.

What rule tells you that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Gays are probably more free to say it than married people. Most promiscuity are by the young, both straights and gays. When was the last time you watched any footage on "Spring Breaks"?

 

Blacks have the right to marry someone of the same race, just like everyone else does.

That argument failed for interracial marriage. What makes you think it is any more constitutional now?

 

Marriage is likely to make them less promiscuous, not more. So why do you oppose it?

 

Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce
"They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else."

....save its unbreakable logic. Untouchable.

 

Usual laundry list of lies. Milk, polygamy, and sodomy aids.

You forgot about the gay cabal taking over the APA.

 

A lot of times a marriage is created so the couple can produce a child. It more likely that a brother and sister can produce a child than a homosexual couple. Yes, there is some risk of defective genes, but than at the end of the day day, a child is produced unlike in a homosexual relationship -- in a way, marriage between a brother and sister more natural. On he other hand, a lot of times the end result of gay relationships are a few empty bottles of astroglide.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-did-breach-German-couples-human-rights.html



If gays can marry, so can brothers and sister. Its a human right. Hell, if the royals can do, so can the ordinary peasants.

you tell them Bomac!!! Yes, gays are not as promiscuous as the average heterosexual:



Rainbow power, yo!!!

 

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand gay pride trying to hold it up as something it isn't.

 

I don't have that "right" either. Marriage is not a "right", btw. Its the privilege of a government approved contract, and a title, founded in the ability to produce a next generation of humans, and sustain the society. It is not about anything else.

- - - Updated - - -

They have the same marital privileges as the rest of us.

 

Children are not a pre-requisite for a state recognized relationship. Not in Germany, and not in the US. There is not even a requirement for a stated intent to have children.

Sterile couples may get married in both Germany and the US.

The same is true of many straight relationships. So what?

Maybe. But one has nothing to do with the other. Incest marriage is a completely separate issue.

By the way, the link you use as an example shows a couple that actually had children. That is the whole point of banning incest marriage. There is actual precedent for incest marriage being legal before in Europe.