Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

Not that few. Get outside the MSM (and maybe into your typical Alabama bar?) and the "serves them right" attitude is loud and clear - and widespread.

I'm not sure how you intend this question to be interpreted. The homosexual community happened to be where it got started. I think if it had started in a heterosexual community, THEY would have been vulnerable (as they are elsewhere) because they engage in sex. I wouldn't be surprised, if it had started in a cloister of nuns, if THAT turned out to be the vulnerable community.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm guessing you mean that HIV is transmitted primarily through sex and sharing needles. And indeed, the needle-sharing community WAS highly vulnerable, and sex had little or nothing to do with it.

Now, if you mean that HIV is more likely to be transmitted during gay sex rather than straight sex, this is probably true to some extent.

I'm still not sure I get your point. It's not homosexuality that causes HIV, or even causes it to spread. Magic Johnson, for example, didn't get it from gay sex.

 

No. It is not. I am assuredly more weathered, and experienced, than you. And it ain't close. You are making stuff up. The overwhelming majority of Americans, while perhaps half are not sympathetic to gay marriage, do not wish ill upon them.

This is nonsense. Such as gonorrhea, because it transfers as it does, will nail heteros. But scientific fact pre-ordained AIDS to be the scourge of anal sex. Wake up, and stop being so liberally blind to facts.

Probably ? Are you that uninformed ? Or do you choose ignorance ?

Magic is one person. You do not know how he got it. Statistics overwhelmingly show that, when transmitted via semen, it is transmitted where semen can come in contact with the bloodstream, as with butt-(*)(*)(*)(*)ing, which typically bursts a few capillaries in the large intestine and sphincter.

You are posting false information and conclusions. As in "You do not know what you are talking about". Your post oozes ignorance. Not unlike a gay prostitute after a good night of work.

pfffft

 

When gays are allowed to married, then every man will have the right to marry any woman or man. Gender, like race is simply a variable in the equation.

- - - Updated - - -

When marriage for homosexuals reaches 2 decades, you will have them

 

heterosexuals are the largest population worldwide infected with HIV.

 

Its funny when the right brings up HIV. They seem to think that lesbians are not homosexuals. After all they have the LOWEST percentage of being infected of any group.

 

same sex marriages have exactly zero effect on opposite sex marriages, so the institution is not harmed in any way.

 

procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. civil unions are seperate but equal(which isn't even true because not all states have them nor does the FED recognize them)and seperate but equal was ruled unconstitutional.

 

is "every man can marry a woman of the same race" discriminatory?
the answer is obviously yes, which is why those laws were ruled unconstitutional. your argument is the same

 

Only because you dodge and weave.

I think AGW =~ 0 and maybe gay marriage > 0 in the consequence department.

You cannot insist OR prove there will be no negative societal consequences. All you can do is FEEL. That is the anti-intellectual core of leftism.

- - - Updated - - -

(last post >>> ignore) It was a logical poop sandwich.

 

At least you agree it 's a new and special right, which is the essence of my side's contention.

.

 

What is funny is when the left brings up lesbians, because they do not want to address the number of women who become lesbians due to abusive heterosexual relationships... because it indicates choice. As for the physics of AIDS transmission between male homo/heterosexuals and female homosexuality... scissors only work when they cut.

This is a stupid argument.

 

Unknowable and certainly unproven.

FEEEEEEEELLLLLLLINGSSSS, NOTHING MORE THAN FFFEEEEELLLLLLINGS....

 

...

...because YOU say so.

Sorry. Race is not the same as sex. We can discriminate on sex.

 

Didn't say they did, or didn't mean it. I'm reminded of the Clarence Darrow quote, "I've never wished any man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction." In other words, there is a difference between wishing ill of someone, and not being too upset if they do get ill.

Except for the fact that HIV does in fact transfer through ordinary heterosexual intercourse. But HIV isn't really all that contagious, so conditions have to be just right. Any sort of exchange of blood can do it (hence the needle issue). Anal intercourse is more likely to experience such bleeding. And as I think you said earlier, anal sex isn't uncommon among heterosexual couples either. Not just in "darkest Africa" either.

I have read about the mechanisms of transmission. Clearly, they extend beyond anal sex.

Yes, we are not disagreeing there. I am interpreting you to be saying that HIV is transmitted nearly exclusively by anal sex, which renders it almost exclusively a gay disease. And this is simply not so.

The way I see it, your "scientific evidence" is being used to target a fairly narrow vector. You haven't even mentioned shared needles. And your imagery there oozes contempt for your chosen "inferiors". I wonder if you are aware that "science" was deployed (citing "known scientific facts") against inter-racial marriage, against extending the voting franchise to women, etc, etc.

I tried posting a link to help you out, but you already know it all, so you couldn't be bothered to read. So I can't be bothered to keep trying.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been brought up. The number approaches zero.

 

hardly, you just cant comprehend that gender is only a variable.

- - - Updated - - -

Got a link to back up this bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

The stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) the rights says to deny equality truly is amazing.

 

Uh... no... I do not... it is my anecdotal evidence based on the hordes of gay friends I have.

Gimme a min.

 

If only it were zero... eh? (*)(*)(*)(*)ing choice... damnit all...

It can only be marginalized due to exposure... not discounted... damnit all...

 

See, that's not being a martyr, though. Because your mom is still enjoying her life while helping others. And that's the healthy way to do it. The martyr approach was what you said in the previous post about not being able to be happy while others are suffering. There's a balance between the two that you have to strike.

It's important to recognize that being compassionate does not mean being unhappy. Making oneself miserable does not help anyone else become happy. It only makes twice as many people miserable.

Thanks, bro.

 

yep, married people are less promiscuous, that is a well know fact

 

Lol, it is of course knowable that other peoples marriages have exactly zero effect on you personally or your marriage.

But don't let your hate get in the way of reality

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: i have no argument to offer in rebuttal.

It's not about sex it's about gender. You can't discriminate based on gender

 

Right. So, again, "literally everything that I disagree with is polluted". Name me one thing that could make you reconsider your assumptions.

Well, seeing as the citation is of a public organization which has laid all of its data bare, it should be no problem for you to find out what the sample size was. So why don't you, instead of making questionable assumptions?

And you would rightfully be torn to shreds, because this would be readily apparent in your data and it would take a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing 8th-grader to determine where your mistake was. Now how 'bout you have the intellect of said 8th-grader and not just simply assume that a massive, 4-year-long survey by the CDC would make a completely false assertion to further an agenda when any idiot with a basic understanding of statistics could look through their figures and call bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and actually look through the figures yourself?

Well, seeing as this experiment has been going on in various places across the world for about twelve years, "nobody has the slightest idea" is sort of pushing the limits of plausibility, seeing as we've seen no such consequences.

"Freely advocate based on feelings"? What, and you have scientific research to back up your claim that more homosexual parents will lead to all of society suffering? When I pressed Unifier on that issue, he basically responded with "Well, it's common sense" - i.e., free advocation on the basis of feelings. And somehow, I doubt it'll be different in your case, because the entirety of research done on the subject completely refutes your position.

No, it's not, otherwise we wouldn't see things like this. Or infertile couples.

The reason why Limbaugh got so much (*)(*)(*)(*) was:
- For starting a week-long tirade against a woman who had the gall to testify before congress about birth control
- For getting the issue incredibly wrong in an almost comical manner (you do not need more birth control pills if you have more sex)
- For being a misogynistic (*)(*)(*)(*)wit and asserting that because her friend could not afford birth control (which, for her, was not birth control, but rather therapeutic medicine to deal with her chronic illness), she was a slut... Hell, just check out the quotes:

I'm sorry, but the fact that he wasn't immediately taken off the air for (*)(*)(*)(*) like that, and that he still has people willing to listen to him blather on is a testament to how free speech is in this country, and how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid some people are in using it.

 

Poor Fluke.....someone called a leftist operative a name, violated the progressive left's "free speech codes", and should be "immediately" silenced. Never you mind that progressive darling Ed Schultz has spit all manner of vile invectives towards everyone from Limbaugh to Palin to Bush..... without a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing PEEP from same.

Make me laugh again, Stag...

 

I agree 100%.

 

Your assertion is absurd beyond belief. To claim that because some traditional couples cannot have children, or choose to not have children, or because folks eventually become too old to have children, somehow undermines the natural coupling of opposite sexes as the basis for an institution of Marriage, is beyond hippie farts and rainbows.

I think our Legislators need to come up with a BFF certificate. Have a BFF ceremony. Give it survivor rights, etc. It won't make all the gay whiners happy, but it sure sounds better than "Civil Union".

 

Hey, how about, when talking about a societal construct that has been around for 12 years with no noticeable negative consequences and no reasonable behavioral models to demonstrate any potential consequences, and in fact research refuting most of the claimed potential consequences, we put the evidence shoe on the other foot? You hypocrite, what do you have other than "feelings" to back up your ridiculous idea that homosexual marriage will lead to problematic consequences?

Should I even bother listing the things wrong with this analogy? Like how Global Warming has an overwhelming degree of research pointing out the serious consequences leading from it, and how we've been feeling those consequences for the last decade quite acutely? In fact, the only thing that seems to work with this analogy is that you've planted yourself quite firmly on the side that has only a tiny, fringe minority of scientific or medical research supporting it.

If some major, national pundit turned your name into a synonym for "slut", you wouldn't be happy about it. You do realize that Palin and Bush are public figures, right? They intentionally thrust themselves out into the limelight, and that opens them up to scrutiny. What's more, most of the criticism against them (for example, the idea that Sarah Palin is a scientifically illiterate hypocrite with about as much understanding of governance as a wet towel, or that Bush lied in order to drag the US into one of the longest, most expensive wars it had ever been in) is based in fact. Fluke, on the other hand, was not a media icon, or a politician. She was a woman going up to testify in a congressional hearing. What's more, Limbaugh completely misrepresented the issue, and to make matters worse, spewed a level of misogynistic vitriol that would get any normal newscaster fired in a matter of minutes. There is NO analogy between what Limbaugh did and... well, pretty much any action from any other major newscaster in the last 10 years.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the fact that couples that cannot have children are allowed to marry directly refutes the assertation that procreation is the basis of the institution of marriage. If procreation were the basis of the institution of marriage, we would not allow seniors to marry. It's really that simple. Sneaky little shift of the goalposts you have there, by the way.