Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

Fantasy wrapped in excuse.

 

What is the faulty premise? That all american citizens deserve equal rights and privileges? Nobody is skipping anything. You are just refusing to look at it.

 

Not an argument.

 

The pluses associated with gay marriage are almost certainly tiny when compared to the minuses it will inflict upon the institution in general. And no one knows the calculus. None of the proponents care about it.

 

You clearly aren't prepared for logic.

 

The minuses? Like Heterosexuals have with their 50% divorce rate?

- - - Updated - - -

And you are? Perhaps you should take a looking at the 50% divorce rate by heterosexuals and then get back to us about the sanctity of marriage.

And you call me a fraud?

 

Sure you can. You are making a commitment, both legally and spiritually to one person. It's easy to walk away from a relationship. Not so hard to a marriage.

 

Study doesnt tell you how they gathered information or the sample size....The sample size could be 10 for a population of who knows how many?

 

No. Like the 68% fatherless black boys that shoot up Chicago. Problems like that.

And you need to admit you have no idea how this will work out. But you won't since you lack all intellectual integrity.

 

Come back when you actually HAVE something other than red herrings and Ad homs.

 

There's almost always serious selection bias with any study that magically finds some 'good' feature of gay male life. Often by design, occasionally only by accident.

 

^^^^^ Obvious biased against Homosexuals.

 

So you DO KNOW it won't go up?

I'd love more details.

 

Well, why don't you point out which statistic bias is present here?

What, you mean a populace that is largely marginalized and forced to hold its few sexual encouters in very high-risk areas would have more STDs? Whodathunkit.

No, but it's hard to stay monogamous when society views your relationship as toxic and immoral. There's a reason the gay scene in the 70s was mostly underground nightclubs.

 

No, you don't know crap about the future you'd impose on all. It's pure selfishness.

 

...So, basically, "Anything that refutes my viewpoint is arbitrarily wrong". Gotcha.

 

Study doesnt tell you how they gathered information or the sample size....The sample size could be 10 for a population of who knows how many?

 

Few encounters? I spent a decade in San Francisco and 'few' would be about 180 degrees off the truth.

And it's WAY more than STDs. There are a dozen pathologies where gays 'excel'.

 

Congradulatins, you went from a Red Herring to a:

 

No. Anything from leftwad social science is dubious. Academia is agenda polluted.

 

Study doesnt tell you how they gathered information or the sample size....The sample size could be 10 for a population of who knows how many?

For instance,

If I went to an NRA convention and surveyed democrats as they left the meeting... with a question of " Do you support the NRA and its stance on gun rights" what type of numbers do you think I would get? Remember, I am speaking for a population of over 50 million voters ( democrats). What If I asked 4 democrats as they left the NRA, and 3 said they support the NRA and its stance. I then publish a study that I can now say " 75% of democrats support the NRA and its stance on firearms".

 

You didn't offer any. I showed you basic math and you called it fantasy. I guess France has problems with its education system too.

 

Does the actual study prove a connection, or is this just Gaystar News and your opinion?

 

Why don't you go find out: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm

 

You don't even know if gays in the study were married. Or cared about marriage. I'm saying...that you can't correlate marriage as a factor in the decrease of partners regarding this study. Its not in the perimeters of the study. Its not a factor within the study.