Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing joke. That leftie gash thrust herself into the public spotlight, son...did you forget that?

 

Sample size and gathering method is not listed . Study fail .

 

You say dodge and weave, I say present logical arguments, of which you have yet to rebut.

If someone presents a logical argument against, I will happily listen to it. Until such time, I will go with what is presented as now.

 

For all anyone knows , this study could have been 10 gay at couples therapy .

 

A survey of all college faculty that showed an even division along political lines.

 

my restaurant had a high percentage of people leaving without paying.

I put a sign on the wall which said please pay your bill before leaving; my chew and screw diners decreased.

Of course it had nothing to do with 6 foot 4 300 pound Bubba sitting at the entryway as my security chief

the OP wants to draw causality without considering that maybe the gay community has finally understood that HIV is a real issue among themselves

 

The OP has an ongoing campaign of disinformation regarding the TRUTH(s) about the gay male lifestyle, and this thread is no exception.

 

but at least the agenda is always known and never hidden.

 

Twelve WHOLE years? That's quite a data set. How does that stack up against the status quo?

Your argument is all emotion. I read it in every post by every leftwad here. The more likely they are actually gay (IMO), the more emotional the responses. I will not waste words on the thoughtless.

P.S. If you want my personal gay estimation of you, send a PM. Your secret is safe with me.

.

 

Nope, you labor under a self-serving misapprehension. The number is not zero because some people are bisexual, able to find satisfaction either way. In terms of their relationships, they have a choice. In terms of being bisexual, they do not.

 

A HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL MALE QUARANTINE., would SAVE MORE LIVES than ANY "GUN BAN":

Over 17,000 AIDS deaths in th eUS, in 2009, ALONE=FAR EXCEEDS gun deaths.

U.S. Statistics


The first cases of what would later become known as AIDS were reported in the United States in June of 1981. Since then, 1.7 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have been infected with HIV, including over 619,000 who have already died and approximately 1.2 million (1,178,350) adults and adolescents who were living with HIV infection at the end of 2008, the most recent year for which national prevalence estimates are available. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spans the nation with HIV diagnoses having been reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.

CDC estimates that more than one million people are living with HIV in the U.S.. One in five (20%) of those people living with HIV is unaware of their infection.

Despite increases in the total number of people living with HIV in the U.S. in recent years, the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. However, new infections continue at far too high a level, with approximately 50,000 Americans becoming infected with HIV each year.

More than 17,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. died in 2009 and more than 619,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. have died since the epidemic began. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 are strongly affected and represent the majority of persons who have died.


•MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
•CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.



http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/


Wanna SAVE LIVES? Demand a QUARANTINE, to protect homosexual/bisexual men from THEMSELVES,and EVERYBODY ELSE, from THEM.

 

Well, if you did a little digging, you'd find it. I certainly did.

Well, all the information in all the studies regarding the 2006-2010 window by the NSFG comes from the same data set. And this paper provides quite a bit of information on that set. The total number asked was somewhere near 30,000, and of those, around 2% had male-on-male sexual activity in the past 12 months. Page 14.

Point = missed.

And yours isn't? You've provided no evidence for your position, and when we did provide evidence, your answer is "not good enough because all research is biased". Again, what do you have? You claim that gay marriage will cause harm to society, but provide no evidence that this is the case, and no sociological framework to even make the assertion. When you make absurd comparisons like with global warming, the contrasts become starkly apparent - with AGW, there is a clear intellectual framework in place with quite strong evidence asserting the consequences of increased warming. Whether you believe the current warming trend is anthropomorphic or not, this framework makes sense, and it gives us strong reason to want to avoid further warming to whatever degree we can.

Meanwhile, I could assert "building tall buildings is terrible for society", but I would have no basis upon which to make this assertion, and without that basis, appealing to cautionary principles is utterly pointless, because if you heed my crackpot warning, you'd be forced to heed any other crackpot theory regarding the downfall of society. And this is the category into which gay marriage falls. There is no intellectual background that can assert this. Any supposed negative effects - children raised by homosexuals doing poorly, heterosexual marriage becoming devalued, etc. - have been examined and found to be lacking any and all evidence to their veracity, save for in the heads of small-minded bigots. You think otherwise? Well then why don't you offer your negative side-effects, and more than your say-so to back them up?

Well, at least you don't talk to yourself.

I'm an openly bisexual male in a long-term relationship with a woman. This is no secret, I have said as much several times on the forum.

...

I read this and was pretty much flabbergasted. Because this statement implies that you think everything is political in nature. Not just that, but that both parties always hold equally valid opinions on every issue. And that is so incredibly wrong that it hurts to think about. Do you know why most evolutionary biologists lean democrat? Because democrats are a hell of a lot less likely to bring on a candidate like Sarah Palin or Senator Walsworth - someone who is completely out of touch with reality and has no understanding of science or the scientific method. It's entirely possible for one of the political parties to be completely wrong on an issue, believe it or not. Oh wait, you do believe that, because apparently, the democrats are dead wrong about global warming.



If you were honest with yourself, you wouldn't expect an even division, you'd want to expect a predominately republican division, because you're convinced that the liberals are pretty much completely wrong on many major scientific and economic issues. But seriously, this dodge is sad. Believe it or not, not everything is political, even after politicians get their grubby hands on it. Not in evolutionary biology, not in climatology, not in economics, and not in psychology and sociology. And the assertion that college faculty would have to have a bias that is influencing their research if their average political positions were different from the national average is so incredibly ludicrous that it hurts, especially given the fact that they're the people most likely to know what they're doing on any given subject.

 

that's the 800-pound gorilla in the room and nobody will touch it because it sounds so.................anti-gay when you cite facts.

 

Well, the MEDICAL FACTS are "anti-gay", at least as far as homosexual/bisexual males, anyway.

 

But you guys like to ignore the fact hat the majority of people infected wih HiV worldwide are heterosexual.

You just like to cherry pick your stats

 

If you want to pretend HIV statistics are somehow relevant to gay rights, you need to accept the fact that the majority of cases are among heterosexuals.

 

Anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV. However, the HIV boom within the gay community had many factors, and that's just one of them. What's more, rates have been going down quite consistently.

 

with 96.8% of the adult population engaging in heterosexual sex I would hope so.

Now look at the cases of HIV and run the numbers considering that 3.2% of the population either engages in gay sex or is a cross dresser.

Your claim would be akin to someone saying that the majority of drunk drivers are right handed. Given about 10% (more or less) of the world population is left handed then why would it surprise anyone that the majority of drunk drivers are right handed?

Do you see how you try to sugar coat the real problem that Grok showed?

Another one you like to use is that the MAJORITY of pedophiles are heterosexual and you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT but your argument quickly goes in the toilet when again, you discover that 3.2% of the population accounts for 40% of the pedophiles while 96.8% of the population accounts for the other 60%.

It's the same with HIV but you use any figure you can without full disclosure in order to avoid the truth. Why do you not want to address the problem?

 

Perhaps because you and the poster you responded too are clearly anti-gay?

 

Nope:

Demographics of sexual orientation

Your 3.2% number is way too low. All you are trying to do is deny that heterosexuals are the biggest population infected with HIV.

For the 1,354,533 time, Pedophilia has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is about power and control, just as rape is.

 

would I ever consider engaging in gays sex; heck no. But if that floats your boat then that's your business. Heck, you probably wouldn't like how I have sex so we're even. So what in God's name does that have to do with anything.

If I was to pre-judge you if we met in person, it would be your leftist leanings which would grate on me, not what or with whom you do it.

I simply don't believe that how we have sex is the business of anyone else as long as it's with consenting adults.

I've asked you countless times; do you put your pants on differently than me? Do we not bleed when stuck? If I did not hire you to remodel my home it might be because you were too expensive but certainly not because of what you do at home. That is where you will find most folks differ. I bet you would give the nod to a gay contractor over a heterosexual contractor where I would simply look for the best overall deal and low price is not always the best value.

I once again assert that it is you and many in your "movement" who are the bigots and intolerant ones.

 

Your posts speak otherwise.

 

in your mind perhaps, but take it up with Gallup. I have a thread about it in the gay subsection and have posted links countless times. In fact, the Gallup poll is higher than a poll from "Gay Times" so I use the higher number. And, that 3.2% is not just those who engage in gay sex, but includes cross dressers as well so it's the entire spectrum of those who are not straight heterosexual.

- - - Updated - - -

to those who are intolerant of common sense, yes, that would be correct.

 

Not at all. I think political influence is impossible to avoid in academia. It's been evident in so many items that I have investigated that my default is to assume it. This is something the typical thoughtless leftwad won't notice.

Carry on.