Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

I am in the entertainment industry, and know a lot of GLBTQ, Hebrew Americans, African-Americans, and Mexican-Americans. From my observation, no particular group is any more promiscuous than any other. I will say this as a male though. I think we men are dogs. We can't help it. I have seen people throw away some good marriages because someone had an outside. Frankly, I find this stupid, it is just sex.

 

Like the inequity in fertility rates? My country needs new taxpayers. Dodge away.

You CANNOT know this. It is currently unknowable.

.

 

I agree. Book blurb: "More intellectually honest than most leftists."

 

We aren't talking about other cultures. We are talking about America. Which has laws regarding what someone under the age of 18 can or can't consent too. If you'd like to talk about other cultures issues, I'll be happy to do so in its own thread.

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.[/QUOTE]

Men and Women over the age of 18 are consenting adults. It's only a distortion in your mind. Anyway, I don't subscribe to your definition of marriage, and reject it. I respect your right to believe it, but I will never see it as a viable point of view.

Unifier started the premise, to which you replied referring to the Helgelian Dialectic. Explaining it in your own words emphasizing certain parts of it and ending with your statement of the lefts usage of minority's and others in the course of their fight. Post #56

Why would helping someone automatically be at ones own expense? Anecdotally, my Mom works in the health care industry (Senior care) and is greatly rewarded by her work while enjoying her life outside of work (going for her Masters). I know that is only one example out of many but it does show me that helping others can be rewarding.

It sucks though because the ones you hear most about are the ones who make the worst examples, while those who work their whole lives for others go unknown.

Thank you good sir, I have always appreciated our various debates as I find them a definite step above the usual clatter of this place. Your very articulate about what you think and I appreciate your candor. Also your avatar is awesome. Cheers

 

Yeah. You need more people. Right. Good one.

Well, as nobody has offered any logical arguments against, I'll think it's a safe chance.

 

Doesn't matter. The Law is one man and one woman in many jurisdictions. You claim that law is improper. Just as others would object for their own personal reasons. As I illustrated.

It is not my definition. I did not write the Laws. The legal institution of marriage evolved exactly on the basis that I noted.

Post 56 is not mine. I never quoted post 56. I took issue with your claiming that marriage based on sexual persuasion made same-sex couples second-class. It does no such thing.

.

 

Because all the straight marriages in Canada, Denmark, and France have fallen apart at the seams when Gay marriage was legalized?

 

Social security is crashing from lack of workers.

So...the precautionary principle will be invoked only for things you advocate for (global warming, e.g.)? Utterly dishonest.

 

Show a long term study. One honest one over two decades will suffice.

 

The fact that it isnt law negates your premise that its not Natural Law. Or were you just presenting it as one argument? I'm not sure if your arguing for yourself or just a position.

Here is the part where I get out a big heaping dish of crow. I apologize, for I am a moron who can't read. I get caught up in multiple arguments and lose track of who's who.

 

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Oh? You really think Gay people getting married has a consequence scale the same as something like Global Warming? As has been pointed out, Gay Marriage has already occurred and life hasn't changed. At all. You have still failed to offer any possible outcomes yourself throughout all of this...perhaps you could give me an idea of what could happen?

 

What ? It is the law in many jurisdictions. And in 8 or 9 it is not ! I have never once in PF taken issue with a state changing its laws regarding marriage. What I did take issue with is the notion that gays are "second class" in those states which do not recognize same-sex marriage. My examples were to illustrate that the legal definition is not based on minority notions.

Well, at least I got you to finally check ! Although I commend Web's posts !

 

The first country to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands, and that was 12 years ago. Link here

As the numbers indicate, gay marriage has yet to cause any harm to heterosexual marriages. The mere idea that Adam and Steve's happiness has a chance to ruin anyone's happiness is laughable.

 

But even there, it was discouraging to learn that the hard-core homophobes continue to be a threat. I suspect that the hard core we shall have always with us. Where I live in Alabama, society is nominally fully integrated - BUT people of both races know what parts of town to avoid, which places not to eat at, etc.

My marriage is in no way threatened by inter-racial marriage, but inter-racial marriages face the "hate stare", and little slights like not being seated or served in restaurants and stores. Those people quickly learn what all they can't do as a couple that everyone else can.

 

So we should embrace, or for that matter excuse this behavior because...?

 

Why? What was wrong with it?

 

What you are saying is true for other diseases, but stds are different because of the means of transmission. It is true that hiv is more easily spread through anal intercourse, and that men tend to be more promiscuous than women. This too adds to the std problem in the gay community--I don't discount that. But when dealing with diseases transmitted through sexual partners, the size of the population is a factor as well. A smaller population means a greater likelihood of coming into contact with someone with an std. The other factors exacerbate the problem.

 

But we are not talking about a group of 10 folks, unless they choose to be a group of ten. We are talking a community of many millions, which made your argument moot.

All of the reasons for the pathology with the gay community has to do with methods and choices more inherent to them. That is the difference, which you at least partially acknowledge. Group size has absolutely nothing to do with their situation.

Am I blaming them ? Show me one post of mine that does so ! I only blame those who do not act safely and smartly within the risks they expose themselves to. That disease has made them more easily vulnerable is one of the unequal cruelties of nature.

 

Nobody said that. What made me sad was that even in the Netherlands, same-sex couples continue to face discrimination and physical threats. I'm speculating that those who threaten them feel much the same way as some here who are so vitriolically opposed to giving others the same rights they have. Those others are, you know, just a little TOO other.

 

I saw a long documentary on the introduction of HIV into the US from Africa, where it originated and is devastating. It was sheer (and unlikely) coincidence that the guy who carried it to the US was homosexual, and so the disease got a foothold in the homosexual community. This was doubly serious, because that community was pretty much shoved under the rug medically speaking, so HIV was widespread before anyone really started paying attention -- and because of the frequently stated (and still prevalent) belief in the US that God gave the queers HIV as punishment for the sin of being, you know, icky.

 

Unlikely that a it was transmitted by gay sex ? The earliest recorded case is of a gay British merchant marine acquiring it in N. Africa, and bringing it back to Britain. The year is '58 or '59. Although they did not know it as AIDS then, and only went back to his tissues 20 years or so after he died, and AIDS was now identified. It transmits overwhelmingly by anal sex. Which is a traditional means of birth control in darkest Africa, hence more women having it there.

Not buying it. More money was spent on AIDs than on heart disease under Reagan and Bush. That a virus could be tamed as AIDs has been still amazes me.

 

Now, here's an interesting site for anyone interested. And in it we read:

 

That a few idiots thought it a righteous disease is to paint the many with what was, and is, a very narrow brush of the few. Do you dispute that gay sex made the gay community enormously vulnerable to this disease ? I am not blaming them one iota. I see it as the simplest of scientific facts that they were more vulnerable than any other group by AIDS precisely because of their chosen sexual intimacies.

I lost one of the finest store managers that I ever had to AIDS in '92 (of 14 stores then under my dominion). Took him out to eat 2 months before he passed, while he could still walk. He was quite a mess at that point.

My youngest brother married his partner in Iowa in 2009. I am no stranger to this.

 

As individuals, Gay men have always had the power, as members of any group have, to stop being promiscuous.

 

Saying all gay men are promiscuous holds the same logic as saying all straight men are rapists.