Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

I read your post. It was crap, unfit for a logical response. Your agenda was clear. Your logic was absent.

.

 

oh? and what are the minuses?

 

Aww, you poutin' bro?

 

So...you're advocating for something and you have no idea that there MIGHT be downsides and no idea of their magnitude. Have I got that right?

That IS my point. Nobody has the slightest idea.

If fewer boys are raised with fathers in the heterosexual community, all of society will suffer. There are some suggestions that this is a possible cost. I don't know. YOU DON'T KNOW. But you freely advocate based on feelings. Life as a leftist is so easy.

 

Whoa. This is grossly flawed. You math model is false, in that it imposes a result first, and then claims "see" ?

What you did was impose a situation where 10% of one group got sick, and only 1% of another group got ill, and then claimed "see, 10% of the one group are ill". Well no (*)(*)(*)(*) !!

When the fact is that pathogens usually have the same infection rates when all other factors are equal. For instance, if 20% of folks catch the flu in any given year, you would have 2 of the smaller group, and 20 of the larger. That is how it works.

However, the facts are clear that anal intercourse introduces a vector of infection for certain pathogens not easily transmitted by other means, and that anal intercourse is more prevalent in the gay community. If one group has more sexual encounters per person, that will also skewer results. This is why the gay community has more pathology. Not your absurd math example.

To further debunk your model, let us assume that 2% of the US is gay, that is still 7 million folks. By your model, which states that the smaller group will have a higher incidence of illness, based on size, a country of 7 million people or less, such as Denmark, Finland, Norway, or Ireland, would be more sick than the US, cause they are a smaller group. But that is not reality. They are not as ill as our gay community.

I am glad for any positive news regarding the health of any group of Americans. We all know that the gay community has been racked by disease precisely because of its more unique sexual practices. It is what it is.

 

Hegelian Dialectic. Real or invented from whole cloth, the progressive left must always have a "cause", a moral outrage, a grievous inequity...which invariably translates into a "victim" versus an "oppressor"...

and at the end of the day, this dichotomy is exploited for ONE reason.....to demonize and malign the hated "regressive" Right-Wing....the last defenders of hated economic freedom and the hated central authority limiting US Constitution.

Women, Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims....are just employed as useful idiots to those ends. Condescendingly.


http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

 

There's nothing in the article backing up your claim or Gaystar News' claim.

 

Actually, I was asking you for your thoughts. I already know what I think the possible downsides are (hint, its a really short list), but you were so quick to jump on someone else for talking about the downsides, I figured you had an idea. Unless you were just trying to be contrarian for the sake of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, people would never want to fix the problems they see in society just to .. i dunno, Improve on said society? No, it must be just to get at the right. Persecution complex much?

 

Got it, just accusations from you, no proof, even thou I linked the publishers of the study.

Bravo!

 

Are INDIVIDUALS "second class citizens"..."animals"?....in your world, does achieving "first class" status require the state to recognize, license, and laud special benefits on pair bonding ?

 

It does when said recognition is freely (to the point of drive through chapels) available to straight folk.

 

It's no accusation. It's a fact.

 

I don't see anyone here rooting for more illness within the gay community. I suspect all would feel that less illness is good. The point is that the OP made a cause-effect conclusion that has no basis in the data. Others then offered equally unfounded conclusions.

 

Red herring. Anyone in the US can marry someone of the opposite sex. And only one at a time. For your statement to be true, then it also must be true that if one wants 10 wives, but can only legally have one, then they are second class. If someone wants to marry a child, which may likely be the custom in their country of origin, then they too are second class.

You are espousing victimhood nonsense. Marriage is based on the biological ability to create children. That is it. Nature's law. However, I believe fully in civil unions which provide all benefits except adoption privileges.

 

All perfectly true, though none of that has anything to do with your statement as it stood.

 

Seriously....is the lack of "free" birth control such a societal "problem" that it deserved over a month of progessives (and their complicit Fourth Estate) raging against right-wing "oppressor" Limbaugh... screaming for boycotts against Limbaugh's advertisers..... and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...a progressive scumbag WHO'S MADE HIS BONES "organizing communities" against "oppressors"...weighing in to personally console the poor progressive "victim" Sandra Fluke?

Persecution complex indeed.

 

Have you ever heard of police officers writing more tickets at the end of the month just to fill a quota? I'm not sure how legal it is, but it does happen.

There is a difference between fixing legitimate problems and creating ones that don't exist so that you'll have something to do. Too many liberals don't know where to draw this line. They are addicted to anger, victimhood, negativity, and instigating. If you removed all conservatives from the country tomorrow and gave the liberals the entire country to run with no opposition, within a few weeks, they'd be fighting amongst each other, looking for new things to feel divided about. It's what they do. It's a character flaw. They only think they want peace and harmony. But it's an illusion. If they truly wanted peace harmony, they'd be peaceful and harmonious now. But they're all so angry. They don't understand that emotions are chemicals in our brains. And those that we use the most often, we become addicted to. It's why happy people stay happy, depressed people stay depressed, angry people stay angry, and so on and so forth. Libs live for that anger fix. It's what fuels them.

 

I disagree. Kids can't consent and while I personally have no issue with polygamy, I believe its only limitations should be tax and benefits related.

As it stands denying 2 consenting adults of the same gender the same access to marriage as 2 consenting adults of opposing genders is discriminatory on its face. Lots of hetero-Marriages do not result in offspring, which by your logic would not be allowed.

 

Yes they are over-enthusiastic in their response, the base reason for it was sound. Rush went off on the women who just wants access to birth control. Which is a perfect representation of why people go off so much. To a great many people, the idea that there is such a venomous response to a simple pill that keeps the population (stretched as it is already) down is mind boggling to the extreme. If Rush had just been like 'I disagree with this individual for such and such reasons' nobody would have batted an eye. But that doesn't please the crowd who wants venom from him. Its a f*cked up cycle of hatred that sucks in both the left and the right.

For some, that is probably true. For others, the idea of being happy now while so many suffer isn't possible, so they have to work as hard as they can to help others.

I'm sorry, but cynicism is probably my least used trait. I refuse to believe that people can be codified so specifically under one (of 2) political banners. I understand that the world isn't all rainbows and puppies, but I have always felt that optimism and hope leaves me happier and satisfied then the alternative.

 

Discrimination based on sex is legal in this country. That the law allows every man to marry a woman is not discriminatory as every man has exactly the same right. Every man is not permitted to play in the LPGA or wait tables at Hooters. The equality argument is spurious. Only the USSC leftwads will embrace it.

 

Both of your examples are based on specific inequalities inherent to the position. Men can hit golf balls harder then women and men don't attract patrons to a business focuses on breast size (though I wonder how many tran waitresses have been leered at without the customers knowledge).

There is no inherent need for this division. Giving Gay people the ability to marry as straight people do does nothing to straight marriages.

 

It wasn't my statement that you took issue with. It was someone else's. I, however, took issue with what YOU said. Look it up.

 

You said that the Progressive Left must have causes to fight against for the sake of fighting. I said that some actually one to do good for the sake of doing good. Not sure how you could have mixed that up....

 

That is not the issue. We both know that in other cultures parents can marry-off their 10 year old daughters. I made that pretty clear in my post.

This is nonsense, if not a deliberate distortion of what I said.

The basis for marriage is not just "two consenting adults". Its " .... one man, one woman." It is also based on reproduction. It does not require reproduction to accur. I made all that clear. Do not inject your strawman nonsense into my posts, if you don't mind. That's for folks who cannot debate.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I did not. For chrissakes, I told you it was not me, and implored you to look. Are you smoking weed ?

 

And what those people don't realize is that they have a martyr complex. It's noble to want to help others improve the quality of their lives but not at the expense of your own happiness. If you're waiting for everyone else to be happy before you allow yourself to feel happy, I've got some bad news for you. You're going to live your entire life miserable. Because you are deferring your own joy to a time that will never come.

I would actually agree with this. You don't strike me as cynical at all. In fact, I've always found you refreshingly honest and rather open-minded. I think you should have probably made it to my favorite posters list in that thread in the other section. I enjoy talking to you. I feel like you listen. Which is huge.