Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Fri 08 May 2009 01:39 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. An outcome of gays having orgies in the room beside impressionable young children does not follow the matter of homosexual monogamy any more than it follows heterosexual monogamy.
If we are focused on concern for the children, than it would make much more sense to be uncomfortable knowing that children are living in households in which couples (heterosexual or homosexual) are verbally and physically abusing one another.
You're making an "all in the Kool Aid and don't know the flavor" fallacy. Who said ANYTHING about homosexuality? I'm talking about POLYGAMY.
HAHA...the "Kool Aid Reference" was too funny.
Yeah, and the real sad part is that erasmus disagrees with polgamy too. Was erasmus having a "moment," or is this normal?
My point was that not all perversions are the same. I know that you did not specifically say that they were but I was under the impression that you were grouping things together based on the relationship of your post to the proceeding posts by DChapman and DragonHorse. If it is not your view that homosexuality can be equated to polygamy then I apologize for putting words in your mouth and suppose that I just might have been having a "moment." I'll add that I do also think that polygamy does not necessarily involve orgies, which is what you were suggesting then. Wasn't it?
Perhaps I should have directed my point about homosexuality not equaling polygamy or orgies or other such perversions toward DChapman who had previously said-
Quote:
What I am saying is that the next cause the agents on the far left are likely to champion are pedophilia and bestiality.
I don't think that the gay marriage movement is so much about an insistence that homosexual partnership is identical to heterosexual partnership as it is about breaking down some of the legal barriers that deny homosexuals certain basic rights.
Um, I love a civil liberties tangent as much as the next person but what does Obama or any other U.S. citizen have to do with Michael Savage and his mouth being uninvited to the UK? The reaction seems hysterical, and why isn't it directed solely at the UK government?
This seems like a gratuitous jab at the O administration. Unless Mr. Savage thinks that Obama gave Ms. Smith a call and told her to do it?
I don't see it as a tangent. Britain does have a peculiar record of censorship, which I think is a shame for Britain. We recently discussed the matter of Geert Wilders being banned HERE. Louis Farrakhan was banned from entering in the 80's. I think that Britain, like the UN, is undergoing a massive assault on civil liberties these days, particularly as result of a prioritization of Islamic group values over individualism and enlightenment values.
The Huffington Post article eluded as much about the recent list of censored persons-
Quote:
But some of the people on the list criticized it, and one analyst said it contains a wide variety of people to avoid giving Britain's Muslims the impression that it singles them out.
Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list.
Frankly, I don't think much better of Michael Savage than I do of Michael Phelps and I don't really care what any of these sorts of people say about the Obama administration. But I do think it is a tragedy that if you want to censor something in Britain, as in much of Europe, it is only a matter of vogue to term it as "incitement to hatred." A bit like playing the race card I think.
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
No it isn't....Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals. We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
It would be interesting to look at those states that have legalized homosexual marriage to see what percentage of the gay male population residing in that state has bothered to get married. I suspect lesbians are more likely to take advantage of the marriage option than homosexual men.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 13 May 2009 21:03 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
No it isn't....Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals. We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
It would be interesting to look at those states that have legalized homosexual marriage to see what percentage of the gay male population residing in that state has bothered to get married. I suspect lesbians are more likely to take advantage of the marriage option than homosexual men.
Actually I read that lesbians are quite monogamous, gay males are not...I will try to find data to back that up.
Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals.
Nothing legally prevents homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships. But a great deal prevents monogamous homosexual partnerships from safely sharing and pooling resources, and from protecting shared financial and property investments in the fashion that heterosexual married couples take for granted. Homosexual couples do not have the same legal abilities to pool resources and share assets in a legal fashion. For example, if one partner in a committed homosexual partnership of 50+ years dies, then the partner's assets are not simply deemed as the property of the surviving partner, even if they were built and shared across a lifetime. Taxation... employment benefits... there are a variety of issues.
The issue of legal marriage is not a matter of spiritual but specifically of legal significance.
G-Man wrote:
We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
I know several monogomous homosexual couples who show themselves to be remarkably faithful and have met many heterosexual married couples who are repeatedly unfaithful. Besides, I think that the very high levels of heterosexual infidelity in America make this consideration into a rather moot point.
If we were to really start looking at statistics as a way to make statements about entire groups of people then we are engaging ourselves in raw prejudice, plain and simple. I think that a meaningful parallel could be made here between the idea that homosexuals can be assumed to be promiscuous because a relatively large percentage of them are and the idea that "black" people can be assumed to be violent because a relatively large percentage of them are.
Bestiality and pedophilia are "abuse" because you are forcing an animal or child who does not have the capacity to consent into certain actions. The broad category for this type of thing is called rape. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine someone advocating "rape" is good and should be permitted. Homosexuality does not "force" anyone to do anything. There are gay rapists, but being a rapist is not mainstream in the gay community.
I understand and I agree. What I am saying is that the next cause the agents on the far left are likely to champion are pedophilia and bestiality. Some homosexual groups are pushing for the age of consent to 12. It's not that crazy of a thought now, since there is no line drawn in the sand. So where do we draw the line now, same sex marriage??? If so, then why stop there? Another cause will be multiple person marriages, how can we now deny this? Perhaps some Mormons in Utah will want to push for their civil right to marry more than one woman.
Oh well, looks like we will lose the battle, but ultimately the war will not be won by the agents of the far left.
outside of my political and religious leanings, I'm going to side with DH and be a realist about this.
To equate gay 'rights' with bestiality or pedophilia without looking at 'straight' people and the number of heterosexual men who are caught in pedophilia circles with girls or who go over to parts of Asia or Eastern Europe where child prostitution is readily available and most of these are with girls.
To our general societies 'turn the head' to men who go after younger and younger women.
The amount of young girls in relationships with men
R. Kelly and the countless heterosexual men who follow suit "well she didn't look 14..."
My dad and I were talking about this whole age of consent thing (I personally have a problem with any person male female gay straight who needs to have sexual relations with people beneath of their generation)
But he said growing up in South Carolina in the 40's 50's for men in their 30's and up to marry girls under 18 was pretty common and acceptable.
Of course even then women made babies and kept the house...
I'm just saying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia- being the next step, just doesn't work for me. And I can say at one early time in my life I believed that too, more or less being taught this. I understand the religious instegation behind this thought.
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
No it isn't....Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals. We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
It would be interesting to look at those states that have legalized homosexual marriage to see what percentage of the gay male population residing in that state has bothered to get married. I suspect lesbians are more likely to take advantage of the marriage option than homosexual men.
I would think that monogamy especially among homosexual men isn't that popular because society made it hard for them to be together, not because it's genetically ingrained in them. I mean for a long time it was a crime, so the risks involved would obviously hinder monogamy.
With women, physical intimacy and closesness was/is never suspicious behaviour. So 2 women could be be married to men, and be in a romantically involved and still 'pass' or not have the issues gay men probably fit.
Even today for an actress to be bisexual or gay isn't a big hinderance to her career. But I think it's much different for a man. Lesbian sex is very much welcomed in heterosexual porn or general male situations.
I have an uncle and his family who moved to the burbs in the earrrrllly 80's and by the time they got there there was already a 60 year old gay male couple living there and they were there for a long time most likely under the radar.
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
No it isn't....Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals. We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
It would be interesting to look at those states that have legalized homosexual marriage to see what percentage of the gay male population residing in that state has bothered to get married. I suspect lesbians are more likely to take advantage of the marriage option than homosexual men.
I would think that monogamy especially among homosexual men isn't that popular because society made it hard for them to be together, not because it's genetically ingrained in them. I mean for a long time it was a crime, so the risks involved would obviously hinder monogamy.
There were (and still are in some states) sodomy laws that were used against homosexuals, which made it hard for them to be extremely promiscuous as well. Raids on gay bars and bath houses were common up to the 70s too. However this didn't deter gay men from successfully pursuing numerous sexual hookups back then. Today society is more tolerant of homosexuality and gay men are still very promiscuous.
The reality is that U.S. gay male lifestyle is hedonistic in comparison with other people's lifestyles. How society views homosexuals has very little effect on this IMO. IMO this is a function of them being male who are sexually attracted to other males. Many heterosexual men would love to be as promiscuous with women as homosexual men are with each other.
I am not arguing for or against same-sex marriage (personally I support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples). What I challenge is the notion that allowing gay (men) to get legally married would curb their sexually promiscuous behavior. As I mentioned earlier, nothing stopped gay men from living together in stable, more or less monogamous, long-term relationships. Many lesbians have done so and some gay men once they are past their prime do so, but gay men generally, at least when they are young and attractive, have no interest in getting married and changing their hedonistic lifestyle.
Recently I came across some information about gay marriage in Toronto. Supposedly the gay (male and female?) population is around 14% or so, but since same-sex marriage has been legalized there, something like 1% of the gay male population has tied the knot.
Not sure I'd be comfortable knowing that children are living in household with orgies going on in the bedroom... know what I mean?
Do homosexual couples have orgies? I always thought that the point of their wish to be married was for the sake of establishing monogamy, or at least some semblance of the traditional heterosexual unit.
No it isn't....Nothing is stopping homosexuals from establishing monogamous relationships, except homosexuals. We shouldn't assume that the extent to which homosexuals are promiscuous is related to their inability to get legally married. Most homosexuals really aren't interested in forming relationships that approximate a traditional heterosexual unit. Their high levels of promiscuity suggest that as a group monogamy isn’t that popular with them.
It would be interesting to look at those states that have legalized homosexual marriage to see what percentage of the gay male population residing in that state has bothered to get married. I suspect lesbians are more likely to take advantage of the marriage option than homosexual men.
I would think that monogamy especially among homosexual men isn't that popular because society made it hard for them to be together, not because it's genetically ingrained in them. I mean for a long time it was a crime, so the risks involved would obviously hinder monogamy.
There were (and still are in some states) sodomy laws that were used against homosexuals, which made it hard for them to be extremely promiscuous as well. Raids on gay bars and bath houses were common up to the 70s too. However this didn't deter gay men from successfully pursuing numerous sexual hookups back then. Today society is more tolerant of homosexuality and gay men are still very promiscuous.
The reality is that U.S. gay male lifestyle is hedonistic in comparison with other people's lifestyles. How society views homosexuals has very little effect on this IMO. IMO this is a function of them being male who are sexually attracted to other males. Many heterosexual men would love to be as promiscuous with women as homosexual men are with each other.
I am not arguing for or against same-sex marriage (personally I support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples). What I challenge is the notion that allowing gay (men) to get legally married would curb their sexually promiscuous behavior. As I mentioned earlier, nothing stopped gay men from living together in stable, more or less monogamous, long-term relationships. Many lesbians have done so and some gay men once they are past their prime do so, but gay men generally, at least when they are young and attractive, have no interest in getting married and changing their hedonistic lifestyle.
Recently I came across some information about gay marriage in Toronto. Supposedly the gay (male and female?) population is around 14% or so, but since same-sex marriage has been legalized there, something like 1% of the gay male population has tied the knot.
I think you misread what I was saying GMan, I'm thinking that those laws and treatments are what cause the promiscuous behaviour in a large way. If it's a crime to 'be in love' with someone of the same sex then the reality of being together long is doomed. And I remember even back in my youth hearing discussions about how "having the feelings are not wrong, it's wrong to act on them"
They are still men, just like heterosexual men, and men still love sex, "how promiscuous" heterosexual men are over homosexual men, is something to look into. But we ain't that far behind, and the lag is only because women view sex differently.
And the marrying rate of young (heterosexual) adults isn't that high, there is a lot of living together (which doesn't mean stable relationships). Outside of rural environments, how many young straight men are rushing to settle down, ...sow your oats... is still a very popular unwritten rule among straight men.
As I said still in 2009 for a man to be homosexual/bisexual or gay is way different than how homosexual/bisexual women are treated.
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 223 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Wed 20 May 2009 16:04 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
They are still men, just like heterosexual men, and men still love sex, "how promiscuous" heterosexual men are over homosexual men, is something to look into. But we ain't that far behind, and the lag is only because women view sex differently.
^^^You've made a good point there. I think that your're correct about the straight male not being that far behind in terms of promiscuity or perceived promiscuity to the gay male. After all, why have the sexes been segregated for so many years in college dorms? I've heard from so many female friends that they can't be "just friends" with a guy because "he's only after one thing" ? Hell, even flipping through some of those Cosmo magazine articles gives one the impression that both sexes are ready and willing to go for it at the drop of a hat
They are still men, just like heterosexual men, and men still love sex, "how promiscuous" heterosexual men are over homosexual men, is something to look into. But we ain't that far behind, and the lag is only because women view sex differently.
^^^You've made a good point there. I think that your're correct about the straight male not being that far behind in terms of promiscuity or perceived promiscuity to the gay male. After all, why have the sexes been segregated for so many years in college dorms? I've heard from so many female friends that they can't be "just friends" with a guy because "he's only after one thing" ? Hell, even flipping through some of those Cosmo magazine articles gives one the impression that both sexes are ready and willing to go for it at the drop of a hat
That's true, women are changing in their views of sex as well, still Men are from Mars & Women are from Venus, I think for the most part women have a sex = love and men have a love = sex idea
I remember in high school having a conversation with other seniors and there was this cute girl golden coplexion big curly hair and I remember the shock we all had when she said "you know some times I just want to f@c% cause it feels good and we don't have to be in love" That was such a shocking statement for me to hear from a woman in 1989 and from a cute girl at that.
But as young men early teens we were already hot for it and looking at it and trying it to various degrees... straight men
People confuse sexual libido and the desire to be more promiscuous with actual promiscuity. Straight men may desire to have as many sexual partners as possible, but gay men are actually able to do so with other men. Your average gay man has far more sexual partners than your average staright man, though many straight men would love to have many female sexual partners.
As hard as it may be for some to accept gay men are more promiscuous than straight men simply because it is much easier for them to procure sex from other men than it is for a straight man to do the same with women.
I think you misread what I was saying GMan, I'm thinking that those laws and treatments are what cause the promiscuous behaviour in a large way. If it's a crime to 'be in love' with someone of the same sex then the reality of being together long is doomed. And I remember even back in my youth hearing discussions about how "having the feelings are not wrong, it's wrong to act on them"
Actually I didn't...I just disagree with the assertion. I doubt the laws and societal attitudes contributed to the promiscuity because I believe gay men were less promiscuous before these changes. (This is not an argument for them to go back in the closet or be less promiscuous btw).
gemini072 wrote:
They are still men, just like heterosexual men, and men still love sex, "how promiscuous" heterosexual men are over homosexual men, is something to look into. But we ain't that far behind, and the lag is only because women view sex differently.
Exactly...Gay men are men who are into other men. Therefore the dynamics of gay male interaction are different from those that govern heterosexuals.
gemini072 wrote:
And the marrying rate of young (heterosexual) adults isn't that high, there is a lot of living together (which doesn't mean stable relationships). Outside of rural environments, how many young straight men are rushing to settle down, ...sow your oats... is still a very popular unwritten rule among straight men.
True, but is there a strong desire amongst homosexual men (as opposed to lesbians) to get married? If they cohabitate with each other how long is the cohabitation? Is the nature of their relationship similar to that of heterosexuals? Specifically, is there more mutual acceptance of infidelity? Based on my one source, my gay cousin, I'd say yes.
My own personal opinion is that many or most gays who want marriage aren't interested in maintaining the heterosexual version of it. I predict when sax marriage comes to your town, lesbians will be more likely to take advantage of it and those gay men that do will continue to be as promiscuous as before they were legally married. Also, I predict lesbian marriages will be longer lasting and the gay male divorce rate will be higher than either the hetero or lesbian divorce rate.
True, but is there a strong desire amongst homosexual men (as opposed to lesbians) to get married? If they cohabitate with each other how long is the cohabitation? Is the nature of their relationship similar to that of heterosexuals? Specifically, is there more mutual acceptance of infidelity? Based on my one source, my gay cousin, I'd say yes.
Can you cite any studies that demonstrate that the length of homosexual marriages are shorter than those of heterosexuals? Gay marriage has been legal in a few European nations to make direct comparisons beyond conjecture.
As for acceptance of infidelity, I think it is difficult to make the argument when a significant number of heterosexual relationships endure (and survive) infidelity. What your one source's arrangement might be is not a lot to go on.
My boyfriend has two sets of gay neighbors (men) who are married and raising children. I'd bet money that they, like lots of young adults in the 60s/70s, were all about the free love. But they, like the majority of those same young adults, eventually got married and settled down. Do they have an open marriage? Who knows, but that brings up another point: If gay men tend to maintain open marriages then marriage is hardly a deterrent, is it? Just like lesbian marriages, male gay marriages might just represent the ideal of what the average male (access to sex with many strangers plus a committed spouse who accepts it) and female (committed spouse with sexual exclusivity) actually want. If so, the only material difference in these marriages is the ability of gays to get what they want out of marriage more than heterosexuals.
G-Man wrote:
My own personal opinion is that many or most gays who want marriage aren't interested in maintaining the heterosexual version of it.
Behind this statement lurks the myth that there is a heterosexual version of marriage that discourages promiscuity. In fact, many married people openly or secretly engage in promiscuous behavior. More accurately, a majority of husbands admit to infidelity in self-report studies (I think a slight majority of wives do too but I'm not sure about that). The institution calls for fidelity, but where's the evidence that getting married actually eliminates or reduces infidelity or promiscuity in heterosexual or homosexual spouses?
I'm not saying that people don't believe in fidelity or vow to do it, but there's overwhelming evidence that most spouses choose not to sustain fidelity in a marriage. If that's true, on what basis would one insist that there is a difference between heteros and homos who get married?
If there is a difference, I'd agree that it is attitudinal (gay males MIGHT agree to an open marriage from the get go; females MIGHT both insist on monogamy) and perhaps even more likely to succeed. That presumption is based on access to sex predicting success in marriage. I don't think that is the only factor in what makes a marriage successful, even for same-sex oriented marriages.
G-Man wrote:
I predict when sax marriage comes to your town, lesbians will be more likely to take advantage of it and those gay men that do will continue to be as promiscuous as before they were legally married. Also, I predict lesbian marriages will be longer lasting and the gay male divorce rate will be higher than either the hetero or lesbian divorce rate.
I disagree that there will necessarily be a gender difference in both desire to marry and ability to sustain a marriage. If people get what they want out of marriage they will stay in it. What's to stop promiscuous men from seeking a spouse or either gender and continuing to have sex with people other than their partners (especially if their partner is all for it)? Divorce hardly seems to be a significant deterrent for hetero men, so why would it be something for promiscuous gay men to avoid? I mean the spector of having your cake and eating it too when it comes to sex is what men around the world either do despite the consequences or maintain the religious and legal right to do so.
A new study published by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy (IMAPP) in May, 2004, sheds light on the high incidence of legal "divorce" among gays who entered into a registered same-sex partnership in Sweden.
The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled "Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex 'Marriages' In Norway And Sweden."
The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
According to IMAPP: "Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I'll add that I do also think that polygamy does not necessarily involve orgies, which is what you were suggesting then. Wasn't it?